Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF AVIATION (DISSOLUTION ORDER)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st February]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 17th January.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Question again proposed.

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is an unusual experience to begin a speech on a Wednesday morning and not bring it to a conclusion until the following Monday; nearly five days will have elapsed between the start of my speech at 12.24 p.m. last Wednesday and the conclusion to which I hope to come shortly. I shall not abuse the privilege of beginning today's debate by speaking for a great time this morning, but I cannot forbear to draw to the attention of my ex-Tory opponent Mr. Norris McWhirter, who is editor of the "Guinness Book of Records", that the longest speech on record, according to the present edition of that book, lasted about 28 hours only, and considerably longer will have elapsed between the beginning and end of my speech. By a curious coincidence, the speech referred to by Mr. McWhirter was made by a senator from Lubbock, Texas.
I was saying last Wednesday that the questions raised by the Plowden Report have in a good many respects been answered in the seven and a half months which have elapsed since the announcement of the dissolution of the Ministry of Aviation. I shall refer to some of those recommendations because I noticed that the right hon. Member for Mitcham

(Mr. R. Carr) said on Wednesday that, in his view, such a change in responsibilities should not take place until the Prime Minister's undertaking of 15th June, that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation would have time fully to deal with those recommendations, had been implemented.
I say in passing that the Plowden Report is not the tablets of stone handed down from Mount Sinai. It was a document prepared in a shorter time than the Committee itself would have wished, and I hope that the House will not treat the whole of that Report as though it necessarily had to be binding on this or any future Government.
For good or ill, however, the Government had accepted the most important of the recommendations of the Plowden Committee that there should be State participation in the equity of the new airframe group, which includes both British Aircraft Corporation and the airframe interests of Hawker Siddeley, although the exact way in which this is to be carried out has not yet been divulged to the House. The letter of the Prime Minister's statement of 15th June has in this respect been fulfilled. His right hon. Friend did have time to deal finally with the airframe interests of the industry, and it was not reasonable to expect that, in a complex issue of this kind, everything could be pushed through to a conclusion before the actual dissolution of the Ministry.
I remind the right hon. Member for Mitcham—or I would do so if he were here—that another of the important problems mentioned by Lord Plowden was the future of the Ministry itself. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten recommendation (xxi) of the detailed recommendations:
The Government should undertake an early review of the future of the Ministry of Aviation.
So what is he complaining about? This review has, in fact, been undertaken and brought to a successful conclusion by the Government.
Another recommendation, No. (xvii), has been implemented—that the Government should decide on their future helicopter requirements. We have arrived at what I consider to be a valuable agreement with the French embracing not only


helicopters but the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. I regretted the remarks made last Wednesday by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Any suggestion that the British are not fully behind collaboration with Europe and, in particular, collaboration with the French aircraft industry is most deplorable. I am convinced that there is a military need for an aircraft such as the A.F.V.G., and it is vitally important that Europe should stay in the technology of variable geometry, which we stood every chance of losing to the Americans because of lack of interest in Dr. Barnes Wallis's ideas of a few years ago. It is not too late for us to restore our lead in that respect, but the only way is by cooperation with the French.
In the debate on 21st November last year, the right hon. Member for Mitcham made a good deal of the lack of progress on the A.F.V.G. and said that if it was to be
… both operationally and industrially the core of our long-term aircraft programme,
quoting the words of the Defence White Paper, it was most regrettable that no conclusion had been reached on it at that date. I was anxious at one time as to whether the French wanted to proceed, but I am now convinced that in both France and Britain it is seen as the cornerstone of our future aircraft programme.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will link his remarks to the Order before us.

Mr. Lubbock: I was only speaking of the A.F.V.G. because the right hon. Member for Mitcham said that a number of extremely important decisions remained to be made, and that the Prime Minister had given him an undertaking that they would be dealt with by the Minister of Aviation before the Ministry was dissolved. In his remarks on 21st November, he highlighted the decision on A.F.V.G. as being one of the most important. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for West Lothian dealt with A.F.V.G. at some length. I do not propose to do that, but I thought that it might be in order to refer in passing to that project which is of outstanding importance.
I hope that I may also be allowed to refer to the procurement decision of the

Corporations. Half of B.E.A.'s new procurement decisions have been made, and I am delighted that it has ordered the BAC111 500-series. I hope that it will not be long before it reaches a conclusion on the remainder of its aircraft requirements.
I agree that that leaves a number of important recommendations of Plowden that have not yet been dealt with by the Government. If one looks through the detailed recommendations—some 24—one is bound to agree that they are not so vital as those to which I have referred. For instance, it would be of value to the industry if 10-year credit terms were made universal for aircraft exports, as recommended in detailed recommendation (xiii).

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this has been done. Would the hon. Member for Orpington not agree that that is the sort of point that strengthens the need for a White Paper following up Plowden as soon as possible?

Mr. Lubbock: I was coming to that point. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for reminding me of it. My information is that discussions have been taking place with the aircraft industry on credit terms for smaller aircraft, but that the present position is that on, for example, the Handley Page Herald or HS 748 the maximum that can be offered is five years. But on the YS 11 the Japanese offer 10-year credit terms. This sort of thing could be harmful in the future to our turboprop aircraft export prospects. I know that the Minister has this very much in mind.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: My understanding is that if an exporter can show that a foreign competitor is having credit terms underwritten in excess of five years the Export Credits Guarantee Department is permitted to match those terms.

Mr. Lubbock: That may well be so. It is difficult to establish on exactly what terms the YS 11 is being exported. The only deal of which one has knowledge is that with Philippine Airlines, which was not a sale but a leasing arrangement. I am told that the Japanese manufacturers


offer 10-year credit terms on those aircraft. I can see no logical reason why one should distinguish between turboprop aircraft and straight jets provided the value of the contract is similar. I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on this matter in discussions with countries interested in aircraft exports.
Similarly, I would like to know, if no announcement has already been made, the Government's view of detailed recommendation (xiv) that they
…should consider reducing the premium charged by E.C.G.D. for credit cover on aircraft deals".
I agree that those points substantiate the plea made by the right hon. Member for Mitcham that a White Paper should be published by the Government, or that the information should be given in some other form to the House, so that we know exactly what view is taken of all these important but subsidiary recommendations of the Plowden Committee.
I do not believe that the dissolution of the Ministry will have any delaying effect on those decisions and that is why I support the Order, even though I agree with the right hon. Member for Mitcham on the need for fuller information. That is all part of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said on television last night. He said that decisions like these, important not only for the aircraft industry and the 250,000-odd people who work in it, but also for the future status of this country, should be worked out in the open. As far as possible, subject to the needs of security and commercial considerations, there should be discussions in the House, and the Government should give us information on all these important matters.
The last point that needs to be made in the debate is to expose the inconsistency of Tory reasoning on the Order, as on so many other subjects. When the present Government came to power in 1964 one of their first moves was to increase the number of Ministries—out of all reason, in my opinion—by the Ministers of the Crown Act, which began its progress through the House in November, 1964. The Government were rightly criticised then, not only by the Conservatives but also by my party. The now

Lord Butler, winding up for the Opposition in the debate on Second Reading, made some interesting remarks. He echoed my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland in pointing out that towards the end of their period in office the Tories had tried to bring Ministries together and create, as it were, a federal structure of Government, and he gave some examples.
Surely that is precisely what the Government are trying to achieve by the Order? The Ministry of Aviation logically belongs with the rest of technology, and by bringing the two Ministries together we shall ensure a wide diffusion of the excellent work undertaken in the Ministry of Aviation establishments throughout the rest of industry—what the Americans call "spin-off". In the Royal Aircraft Establishment, for example, we have the finest materials testing laboratory in the whole of Europe. By bringing the Establishment under the roof of the Ministry of Technology that expertise can be much more widely applied than merely within the aircraft industry.
The other main objection the Conservatives made to the Machinery of Government Bill, as the Act was originally called, was the constitutional danger of swamping the House of Commons with obedient place men on the Government side thus stifling any pretence of free discussion in the House. I believed that that was indeed a serious possibility and agreed with the weighty arguments produced by the right hon. and learned Memfor Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in this respect. But it is inconsistent for the Tories now to seek to retain a Department that has rightly been called "the unnecessary Ministry" by the Economist, multiplying the number of voices clamouring for money within the Government. An article from the Economist on 18th June last year said:
When a government is spending as much as Britain on research, it needs a single Ministry to control where these research funds are going and hold the balance fairly between the glamour boys and the less articulate scientists".
In the next paragraph it was even more precise:
…there is a case for making candidates for the big money, like aviation, atomic energy, machine tools, computers, shipbuilding, argue their case to a common judge and jury.


I believe that we have not gone far enough in this direction and it may be that we shall have to consider bringing not only aviation within the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology but also, at a later date, perhaps the Ministry of Power as well. These are considerations which we should have in mind when voting on the Order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the Conservative Party is opposed to the dissolution of the Ministry of Aviation. What justification has he for saying so? No statement opposed to dissolution has been made by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Lubbock: There has not been any explicit voice from the Opposition Front Bench saying that the Order disapproved. I can only judge from the speeches. I listened to them not only last Wednesday but on the last occasions when aviation was debated, on 21st November, 1966. I have always understood it to be the attitude of the right hon. Member for Mitcham that, while he was not opposed to the dissolution of the Ministry of Aviation in principle, he wanted firm replies from the Government on the powers involved.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, withdrawing the unjustifiable accusation against my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). Our chief criticism has been on grounds of insufficient information and faulty timing; and we see the purpose of this debate as being to probe these matters.

Mr. Lubbock: As Mr. Bevins said in the Sunday Express> yesterday, one cannot understand what Tory policy is these days.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a little wide of the rules of order.

Mr. Lubbock: I am only too glad that the Conservative Party is to support the Order in the end because it would be a pity if the Order, which will improve cross-fertilisation of new ideas, not only in the Government but beyond, were to be opposed for political reasons. The reasons given by the right hon. Member for Mitcham mainly in connection with

the recommendations of the Plowden Report really do not stand up to examination. If the Tory Party really believes in efficient and vigorous management of technology by the Government let it endorse this logical and sensible move.

10.23 a.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I want briefly to discuss those aspects of the Order which have not yet been touched on and I trust that I shall be in order in doing so. Nearly all the discussion so far has been on the transfer of functions from the dying Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology. As far as I am aware, we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss those functions which were transferred to the Board of Trade some months ago.
The Ministry of Aviation in its heyday was responsible for that aspect of the aviation complex which concerns the civil airlines, airports, the future of aircraft noise and such matters. Now, these aspects have gone to the Board of Trade, a Department which at the moment is not perhaps at its strongest or best. We are told by the heavy Sunday newspapers that morale in the Department has never been so low that none of the best applicants for the Civil Service wish to go there.
Yet the Government have transferred these functions to the Board of Trade at a time when the problems of the airlines and all that goes with them have never been so difficult or formidable. I wonder whether, within the Board of Trade, the group of able men who have been transferred will be able to find their feet and deal properly with these daunting problems in the years ahead. Time is very short. We are on the verge of breaks through in aviation which are unimaginable at present. We are on the verge of supersonic flight in enormous aircraft carrying up to 200 passengers. We are on the verge of having subsonic aircraft even larger. The idea of three or four of these vast aircraft arriving at the same time at any of our airports leaves the mind boggling in a state which only Dante could have described. The congestion of some of our airports today when a few of the present smaller planes arrive is a sight to make eyes sore. To have two or three jumbo jets or even


Concords arriving even at Heathrow would mean pandemonium there in present circumstances.
Again, there is a rumble of discontent—rapidly growing into a roar—among the civil airlines at the antics of the Air Transport Licensing Board. Who can wonder when, in a recent judgment, the Board said that, if it had its way, the route it was being asked to re-authorise would be left to British Rail and not be flown at all? This was a domestic air service which had been in action for some time.
The problem of supersonic and even subsonic noise will, of course, fill our minds in the House for many months to come.
These are just a few of the problems which are now hidden deeply within the recesses of the Board of Trade, and one must beg leave to wonder whether the responsibility of a junior Minister, very far from the Cabinet room, within the caverns of this vast Department will be adequate to look after the interests and problems of civil aviation. I do not want to continue along these lines much longer because I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you have been indulgent with me but I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will be able to give a reassurance that the seniority and ability of his counterpart in the Board of Trade will be such that these very difficult questions will be adequately covered.

10.29 a.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I should like to continue briefly from where the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) left off, because, apart from anything that the hon. Member has said, I would have sought to refer to the problems of civil aviation. I understood that already civil aviation had been disposed of and that now we were dealing with an Order solely devoted to the remaining aspects of aviation.
I was interested, however, to hear the hon. Member refer to the "antics" of the Air Transport Licensing Board, because the Board is one of the creations of the Tory Government which we very strongly opposed. On various occasions I have asked the present Government whether they were prepared to put an

end to these antics which have called for condemnation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, hearing support from the Opposition for the termination of the Board, will take some action. I agree about the problems of noise and the associated matters, following the increasing power and speed which people demand of aircraft.
The hon. Member for Garston might have said a word about the need for another airport. A third London airport is our greatest need. The present facilities at Heathrow are inadequate. At times the place is in a state of chaos, as all of us who use it know. I was intrigued to read in the Daily Express, I think last Friday, that the Government had come to a decision on this subject and that the third airport would be at Stansted. I have a Question down to the President of the Board of Trade for Wednesday, and I assume that if that information given to us by the Daily Express, and said to be from Government sources, is correct, the President will confirm it, and that hon. Members will be indebted to the Daily Express for the information.

Mr. Onslow: rose—

Mr. Rankin: I do not mind giving way in the least, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not participate in the Punch and Judy performance which has been going on opposite ever since the debate started at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not understand his concluding remarks. Would he not say, in all seriousness, if he is correct in his interpretation of the item in the Daily Express, that it would be a good thing if the House could be told before the Express and not through that medium?

Mr. Rankin: That is the type of comment that I expected from the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to pursue it because it has no relation to the Order. Having expressed the hope that the information contained in the Daily Express will be confirmed on Wednesday, I return to welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Aviation Group I am sure that I speak for every member of that group in doing so. He shall have our support in all those things


of good repute which he performs and, perhaps he will have a few inquiries on the things about which we are doubtful.
I am certain, from my long association with my hon. Friend in another important aspect of Parliamentary and commercial affairs, that the co-operation which has always existed between us will continue. When I first heard of this change, I was reminded of a book which was very popular particularly in Socialist circles a number of years ago, called "The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists". Its author was Robert Tressall, who was a foreman painter, and the principal character in the book was the foreman of a painting shop.
When the foreman found anything wrong he stormed in among the men, roaring out: "There'll 'ave to be an halteration". [An HON. MEMBER: "A what?"] "An halteration "—I am speaking in English now. That was the sign that there were going to be changes. I am not suggesting that this is in any way analogous to what happened when this change took place. Political parties sometimes delight in changes, and this is not the first change which has taken place in aviation.
In 1953, the party opposite, when in power, looked at the buses and the trains, moving along the surface of the earth, and at the aircraft, moving through the heavens above, and said, "There is a connection; there is movement above and movement below. We will put aviation in with transport." They created the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. After six years of trial and error, they wisely decided that it was a wrong thing to do. Aviation is not only a great Ministry, but also a great industry. Today about 300,000 people in Britain work in some aspect of aviation. The party opposite found from experience that aviation could not profitably, either to transport or to itself, be connected with the Ministry of Transport.
In 1959, therefore, the Government abandoned the experiment, which had run for too long, and returned to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Later, when my party came to power, we took the further step of creating the Ministry of Aviation. I have been identified with this part of Parliamentary work for nearly 20 years, and have certain thoughts about

this change. Aviation is once again being taken from its roots and, like a coursing hare, torn apart, one piece gripped in the steely unfeeling jaws of technology and the other in the prosaic maw of the Board of Trade. What a desecration of all the euphony and poetry associated with aviation. What a fall is there. But the airmen remain with us, the air hostesses remain with us, the aircraft remain with us, and a whole lot of other things which cannot be hidden in the new set-up which we call technology.
I agree that there is a certain amount of reason for what has been done. I would mention as my approach our great new engine, the Olympus, which hon. Members from both sides of the House will have the opportunity of seeing in Westminster Hall on 14th February at 5 o'clock. This is not an advertisement, because all parties are concerned in it. There they will see genius wrapped up in mechanics, steel, technology, wires, and all those wonderful things which go to make up an engine, particularly an engine of this type.
The Olympus will drive an aircraft at speeds greater than sound over distances and within times that men a few years ago scarcely visualised. She is the engine for the supersonic aircraft. But she is not located just in the air, driving aircraft. She will also be used on the ground, in industrial work, creating electrical power. She will, too, be used in the sea and on the sea driving or propelling hovercraft. She has a trine function—earth, sea and air are within her province.
I agree that it would perhaps be difficult to continue calling that the function of aviation. We may go even further. I am credulous enough to believe—and I hope that it is correct—that the Olympus will be out-matched by the further development of the 100,000 horsepower giant which will when necessary drive our naval vessels through the seas. Technology, therefore, in the light of today's knowledge, however metallic and crude the word sounds, is nevertheless part and parcel of what is happening today in the world of aviation, in the world of sea power, and in the world of industrial power—and we have to live with those worlds.
Here is the problem: are we to add aviation to technology, and forget all


about Euclid, who used to tell us that the greater includes the less? Is there any reason why, in the advance of science, we should not discard Euclid and say that the lesser will sometimes include the greater? However, I will not explore that point. It is an argument that will lead nowhere, and will delight the hearts of hon. Members opposite.
I should like to ask why, if we are adding aviation to the Ministry of Technology, we are still leaving science with the Ministry of Education. Surely if aviation is being added to Technology, then science should come from Education into Technology.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That aspect will have to be dealt with on another occasion.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not grasp your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I said that the hon. Gentleman must deal with that aspect of the broad question on another occasion.

Mr. Rankin: I want to make it clear that I am just using illustrations. I thought that illustrations were always pertinent to any argument. However, having mentioned science, and having looked at the Postmaster-General's Deppartment and the health services, I pass on to my next point.
Nobody knows better than the Minister that he has a big job to do. He was good enough not to diminish the size of that job. Like a good Socialist, he likes a big fight. He paid an important tribute to the departing Ministry, to the output of aircraft which it had achieved—the VC10, the Trident, and the BAC111. We all endorse that. He paid a tribute also to the value of exports—£200 million achieved last year—and to the great amount of money—£650 million—which the Ministry had spent last year.
I take it from what my hon. Friend said that he is out to produce even better aircraft under the new régime. He will try to increase exports, and in that he will have our support. He will not bicker at spending more than £650 million on this new job, provided, of course, that he can come to an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Minister also stirred my imagination, because, during an excellent speech, he said:

Wherever possible, Ministry of Defence specifications again will be drawn with a view to achieving exports for the products developed by British industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February 1967; Vol. 740, c. 422.]
In that we all applaud my hon. Friend. One way of achieving more exports for British industry, of giving British industry more work, is to give less work to the Americans in building F111s. These could become our exports instead of becoming a source of expenditure in America. When he makes his decision, I hope that the Minister will do everything possible to strengthen the new developments which are taking place with France and with other parts of Europe.
We have seen these developments take place in connection with the Concord 45. We have seen the excellent relations which exist between British and French workmen. We have seen how co-operation is proceeding smoothly, and we are firmly convinced that co-operation in Europe between equals can proceed even more happily in the future than it has in some cases done in the past, and that it will incorporate further progress, as instanced by the vertical geometry aircraft and the air bus. [An HON. MEMBER: "Variable."] Yes, I meant, of course, "variable", but that correction gives me the opportunity to say that we have also to think of the type of aircraft that will rise vertically. We have been experimenting with it for a long time. This is a new field, and a new temptation for me to continue speaking longer than I had planned, but I do not propose to do that.
My hon. Friend the Minister has set himself a big target and he has created high expectation in many of our minds, and in mine particularly. I have instanced some of the targets which he has set and I wish to draw his attention to something with which I am sure he must be familiar. I expect that he has studied Command Paper 3103 which was issued at the end of the year by a Committee over which Sir Willis Jackson presided. It gave us a warning. It was presented to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the Minister of Technology. Therefore, it must be in my hon. Friend's Department. It points out that Britain's stock of engineers, technologists and scientists rose from 273,000 to


313,000 between 1962 and 1965 and that it is expected to rise to 360,000 in 1968.
Nevertheless",
says this expert Committee,
British industry is expected to be seriously short of professional and technical engineers by 1968".

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to whether the Ministry of Aviation should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am about to conclude on that note.
This warning goes to the Minister who is engaged in creating the machinery for carrying out this Order. He has announced his hopes for future success in the aftermath of dissolution. I am merely pointing out to him this warning about the lack of the necessary personnel in making a success of the job which he has in hand. I conclude by telling him that I believe that he will achieve the success which I said, when I began my speech, I hoped he would achieve.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am sure that we all listened with attention to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and that we are grateful for the constant and faithful application which he has brought to this subject for many years. I think that, in particular, we on this side should welcome what he said about American purchases and British contracting for the F111. Equally, I was glad, and I am sure that my hon. Friends were glad, to hear that he and his Parliamentary Group would keep a constant eye on the Minister and that, although he would favour the things that he described as "actions of good repute", he would nevertheless be prepared—

Mr. Rankin: I am not in favour of discrimination.

Mr. Hastings: I was simply saying that I am sure that we were delighted to hear that he and his colleagues would be keeping an eye on what the Minister gets up to and that they would not be afraid to criticise him when they saw things going wrong. I assure him that the members of the Aviation Committee on this side of the House will do the same. I only wish that the enthusiasm

and dedication which the hon. Gentleman brings to this subject was shown by a few more of his hon. Friends not conspicuous for their presence this morning. I am sure that we are all grateful for the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I hope that I shall not repeat too much what others have said. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is not here, because it seems to me that he missed the point of these two important morning debates. In discussing this Order, what we are interested in is not simply the shuffling of responsibilities but improving functional efficiency. We are not so much interested in who is responsible for what but in how they will do it better. This is the point of our probing and of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) the other day. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate we shall hear a little more about the functions which go with the transfer of responsibility.
One thing which strikes me as odd is the sequence of the Government's decisions. I think that a quotation which has been made already bears repeating. I refer to what the Plowden Committee had to say particularly about procurement:
Whatever the merits and demerits of the present system. there is clearly a marked lack of confidence between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Aviation in the matter of aircraft procurement. Many of the witnesses from the industry, too, considered that the intermediary position of the Ministry of Aviation between customer and supplier incurred greater drawbacks than it offered advantages.
The decision is taken to transfer the Ministry of Aviation and then an examination is set up which satisfies the Prime Minister that all will be well. He said on 21st November:
I have now studied the results of this examination. and have decided that the present responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation—other than those already taken over by the Board of Trade—form a closely connected group that should not be divided …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 940.]
The right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that procurement will be properly handled if left in the Ministry of Technology; we do not know how. We know what the Plowden Report said and we know a good deal about how procurement has gone wrong in the past. I hope that the Minister will clear this up for us.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that there must still be a danger of certain things happening. Suppose that a component on some project goes wrong and that the customer, which is the Service Ministry, complains about it and wants changes and modifications made. This is explained not to the maker but to the Ministry of Technology. The Ministry of Technology may make the same mistake as the Ministry of Aviation made from time to time—it either lays down the modification itself or adjusts it in some way before explaining it to the manufacturer. There is no discussion between the manufacturer and the customer, and a great deal of misunderstanding and muddle has occurred in this way.
I had hoped that we might have heard about how project management generally was to be improved and whether there were any plans for that and how as a result of the transfer the priorities were to be allocated as between the civil and military aspects. There is a vast difference between them, and it is fair to say that in the past the Ministry of Aviation has made a considerable achievement in the civil field. It salvaged the VC10, it sponsored the BAC111, it got the Concord going, and was responsible for rationalisation and the E.L.D.O. project. All these were considerable achievements. On the military side, I do not think that it was so successful. This probably stemmed from the complex of Service interests and inevitable rivalry for funds and the constant battle with the Treasury. How are these things to be improved by this Order?
It is also fair to say that in the past the Ministry has been open to criticism over forecasting costs. As a result of weakness there, the Royal Air Force and the Services have tended to overload their requirements with all sorts of detail which put them far outside the bounds of reason. Again, I hoped that within the context of the Order we should hear from the Minister about how cost forecasting will be improved.
The industry has felt from time to time that departmental functions in the old Ministry of Aviation were co-ordinated at far too high a level, with the result that decision-making generally has been slow and unnecessarily cumbersome. It has been felt that technical officials have

lacked administrative and industrial experience. This also is something which must be improved. Again, industry has felt that the technical side generally has tended to be dominated by the administrative side and that administrative officials have sometimes lacked formal instruction in the fundamental technical aspects of the work with which they had to deal.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about dissemination. A number of hon. Members have said in the debate that the spin-off or dissemination of technical knowledge generated by the aerospace industries will be improved by the transfer. I accept that on the face of it this should be the result. It should always have been one of the principal responsibilities, if not the principal responsibility, of the Ministry of Technology. The fact that it had no idea what to do about this when first set up is another story. What plans are there for this?
In the United States, there are now some 26 information banks spread across the country in which data is stored on magnetic tape and microfilm in an easily duplicated form which is constantly used in research laboratories and throughout industry. N.A.S.A. maintains an Office of Technological Utilisation. This is a system which has been useful and has functioned for quite a long time. I hope that we shall hear something about how this problem is to be dealt with in this country as a result of the Order.
Equally, one particular source of weakness has for years been our inability to lay down a sensible system for incentive contracts. Is there to be an improvement in this direction as a result of the transfer?
I wish the Minister good fortune with his responsibilities and I congratulate him on his appointment. Nevertheless, I remind him of a speech which he made on 21st January at a Labour Party conference at Blyth, when he said that, as a result of these arrangements,
The industry is in a more stable position than during the last year of Tory rule.
I cannot accept that. During the last year of Tory rule there was a balanced and interdependent series of important military projects. Now, we have what one might well term a hotch-potch of foreign purchases and only half-negotiated


agreements to manufacture in common with our European partners and with the French in particular. I welcome such progress as has been made in that direction, but it certainly is not as firm or as logical a position as existed during the last year of Tory rule.
How can the Minister represent that the position is satisfactory when the brain drain of technicians from this industry continues at the present rate? Only last week, the Evening Standard quoted the Ministry of Technology as saying that 1,300 technicians had left the aerospace industries in 1965. That figure included 613 engineers, 41 scientists, 208 technologists and 459 draughtsmen. That is an appalling picture. Only last week I was speaking to a constituent in a small aviation firm which is still losing about two draughtsmen a month to the United States. That is nothing on which the Minister can congratulate himself or the Government and something has got to be done about it.
I know that when the Minister was responsible earlier as Parliamentary Secretary, he did a great deal to assist exports in the industry and this was widely acknowledged on this side of the House. But before he gives himself or the Government any pats on the back, however, he should reflect on the facts which I have just quoted. What I hope that we shall hear from him now as a result of the Order is less talk about the juggling of Ministries and responsibility and more about how Whitehall is to be improved and fitted to cope with the administration of these vital technologies.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I ought to start by saying that not only was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) speaking on behalf of the Labour Party Aviation Group, but that I also was hoping to speak on some of the points which have been made by hon. Members opposite and to put forward some of our thoughts.
I welcome the move from the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology, but like, I suppose, a number of other hon. Members, I do so also with some regrets. This is inevitable if one sees a compact organisational group

being first of all split up into several sections and then moved—as is the case, apparently, of the section which we are talking about today—into a very large homogeneous mass of an industry which prompted my hon. Friend the Minister to describe himself as a Minister for Industry. Once my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had made his announcement of the transfer, I would have been much more happy if the Ministry of Aviation had been moved en bloc so that it remained a section within this very large Ministry.
There are some cautionary remarks which we ought to make in this connection. I accept, for example, that the Ministry of Technology will probably make great use of the knowledge obtained from the aircraft sections within its ranks, but I hope that it does so against the background of the knowledge of the Plowden Committee, which said in its excellent Report that one of the differences between the advance of technology in the aircraft industry and in other parts of industry was the rapid advance which had been made in technology on the aircraft side. This was for the obvious reason that it was faced with the difficulty of time scales and time lags, causing pressure to be behind all its thinking in research and development and the advance of technology generally. I hope, therefore, that delays in that way will not be caused as a result of the transfer to the Ministry of Technology.
Last Wednesday, for instance, in introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that, in short, more thought would be given to the industry inside the Ministry of Technology. I hope that he did not mean slower thought and more time before decisions were made.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse): May I intervene and say that that was a mistake in HANSARD? It should be "more fall-out", not "more thought".

Mr. Dobson: I was a little concerned when I read that there would be more thought, and I welcome my hon. Friend's correction.
There are two or three small items of which I want to make particular point. The first is the problem of noise, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has referred. It seems to me


that this is one of the big problems of the future on the aircraft side. Indeed, any development, not only of aircraft but of airports, comes up against the tremendous problem of noise.
Many provincial airport authorities are thinking of developing their trade, quite rightly, into international or European centres. This is inevitable and is something that most people would probably welcome. It is a good thing in air policy generally from the pilots' view, if nothing else. This can be done effectively, however, only if we do something about the problem of noise which is made by aircraft either in flight or in take-off and landing. These are the main drawbacks.
We have a possible development in the Bristol area, but one of the main features about it has been that the noise which people fear so much from the reports they have read of the London area is making a reasonable approach to the development much more complicated. It makes it difficult for ordinary people to accept the development as a logical move. The problem of noise overrides every other factor in the development of airports. This is an important point and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with it effectively.
The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned the swing-wing aircraft, a matter which was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. I hope that the Ministry will clarify some of the statements which were made at Question Time last Wednesday. I listened to them very carefully and read them afterwards in HANSARD. They still leave doubts in my mind. When I addressed a meeting of aircraft workers in Bristol on Friday evening, I pointed out that I read the Minister as saying that all was well with the A.F.V.G. project, but I was bound to add the cautionary note that it seemed to be cut across by some of the remarks which he added in reply to supplementary questions. I hope that today he will be able to give us a little more information about the actual position on this aircraft.
This is very important, because, in an intervention just now, an hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about the state of the industry in 1954 when there was a lack of projects looking ahead. It seems to me that one of the big essentials in

the swing-wing A.F.V.G. aircraft is that it is a concept which many people would think is one of the future and, therefore, is probably going to help them to stay in the industry.
I know that there are doubts whether the A.F.V.G. is the right aircraft, and whether it should not be the Mirage 3. That is a very good technical argument which we could have, but certainly I will not get involved in it. However, in my view, some of the information about the A.F.V.G. should be clarified, and some of the arguments used in support of the Mirage 3 should be met with counter-arguments. A definite decision should be made, so that the industry knows where it is.
We have all been worried by the brain drain from the industry, and this is another area about which there is far too little information. One is conscious that, with accurate information, a situation can be met and dealt with. However, with brain-drain type figures coming from various sources, of which the old Ministry of Aviation was the channel, it can be disheartening for people in the industry who want to stay to have such figures thrown at them. We shall never stop people emigrating and gaining technical knowledge in other and more advanced countries overseas, but we should be able to get hold of information which makes it crystal clear how many people are going and how many are staying, otherwise people's morale gets very low, they begin to be dissatisfied, and that works right through the industry.
I hope that this move into the Ministry of Technology does not mean that we cannot have decisions at some stage or another on the Plowden Report with regard to more public control inside the industry. When the chairman of a very large company says that he is in favour of more public control than exists now, it is indicative of many of the views of other people in the industry. It is certainly indicative of the views of thousands of workers in the industry who would favour more control in that way.
I do not share the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I understand, have said that their opposition is due to the faulty timing of and insufficient information about this proposal. There is a need for more information, and I have


asked one or two questions myself. However, if at any point in time we need to make a move, this is it. We seem to have a programme for a few years ahead which might be interesting and useful for people working in the industry. It appears from a report in one of the London evening papers that, this year, the industry has had a very good year. That was the effect of the article, and it did not praise the Government for it, but the industry itself. That is very creditable, but it shows on the reverse side that the Government have not been a hindrance to the furthering of opportunities in the industry.
I welcome the fact that the industry is to be changed over, and, bearing in mind the cautionary words that we have heard today, we wish it well under the control of its new Minister.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I want to confine my remarks to the question of military procurement. It is rather whimsical that this Order is described as non-controversial, when it is well known that the Minister of Defence fought like a tiger against it and tried to get military procurement into his own hands. In my view, he was entirely right, but his technique is a little out of date. In Cairo, rioters drive women and children in front of them. In this Government, we have the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade driving their Parliamentary Secretaries in front of them as a cover when they attack the Government. The Minister of Defence, however, has not even bothered to put up one of his own Under-Secretaries and what I shall do is to make the speech which should have been made.
I have always believed that the Ministry of Aviation is a bad one. It is a direct descendant of the old Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply. The record of bad judgment, bad estimating, bad security and general incompetence has been appalling. If this Ministry was dying, I should have to say something nice about it. The only nice thing that I could say about it in its obituary is to thank it for its prodigal generosity in supplying executives to the aircraft industry.
However, it is not dying. It is carrying on. Why is it so damaging for the Armed Forces? First, there is the rather simple point that it is analogous to someone else ordering one's clothes and trying them on for one. That may be what happens to the clothes of the Leader of the House; I do not know. Certainly it is not a method which most of us would think sensible to adopt.
With a separate Ministry, what always happens is that it likes to have a policy of its own. The old Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aviation always had military ideas of their own, and were always able to switch money between their civil and their military sides. There have been cases where some device which no longer interested the military has been pursued because of the interest of the Ministry of Supply. When its history comes to be written, the Fairey Rotodyne will be an instance of that. A Ministry on its own, with many interests besides the military interest, will never put that absolute concentration and energy behind a project which is needed if it is to go through.
When I was Secretary of State for Air, there was the Hunter gun trouble. When the guns were fired, the engines flamed out, and the fighters were useless. I was conscious that if anything had happened where we needed our fighters and they all proved to be useless, it was likely that I should be torn to pieces by the mob. However, it was not my responsibility to cure the Hunter gun trouble, but that of the Minister of Supply. I should have pointed out to the mob that it would be more rational to tear the Minister of Supply to pieces, but I am not certain that I should have got away with it. One was conscious at the time of one's own anxieties, and the will to get it right was greater than that of the Minister of Supply, who had so many other things to do.
The same think will happen here. The vast number of bits and pieces that the Minister of Technology now has is enormous, in terms of computers, chemical engineering, and, one of the oddest ones, boat building. In addition, the Minister is now taking a personal interest in takeover bids. He interfered tremendously in Rootes and in Pye, and he has about 20 or 30 various other responsibilities. A


keen application to the production of military matters, and particularly military aircraft, is necessary.
This would not matter so much if there was not this variable geometry project. I share the doubts of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) whether either this Government or the French Government really mean this seriously. It is very doubtful indeed. But if they do mean it seriously, it is obviously something of immense importance. It will be a colossal expense but it will be useless unless it arrives on time.
Is it to be supposed that the Minister of Technology, who is not perhaps the greatest of our Ministers, responsible as he is for boat building, perhaps riding at anchor in the wind at Brighton, will really supply the single-minded energy and drive which are necessary to ensure that millions of £s are not wasted? I believe that the Minister of Defence was right to try to get military procurement into his hands, and I regret that an Under-Secretary has not turned up to fight the case for him.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: This has been an excellent debate. We have had an extremely interesting speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and I think he will agree with me that for once the House owes a certain debt to the Leader of the House, whom we are sorry not to see here this morning, because we as a House of Commons appear to have been given back a right which we lost many years, the right to go on debating something until we are fairly satisfied about it. No doubt this was not in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he introduced these ingenious and incomprehensible reforms, but I suppose that in a climate where we are so used to right hon. Gentlemen opposite saying one thing and doing another we should be grateful if they do the opposite of what they have said they meant to do and presented us—though no doubt this will soon be taken away again—with a measure of increased freedom.
I expect that when right hon. and hon. Members become familiar with the workings of the rules of order applying to these morning sittings we shall have increasing reason to be grateful for them,

but it seems a pity that some hon. Members were a little slow to understand them. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) did not seem to be fully seized of the conditions in which we were operating when the debate opened last Wednesday, and I am sure that he will be the first to regret it if his inadvertent ignorance led him close to displaying bad Parliamentary manners.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is not with us. I do not know what he would have made of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), which was a little more than short. It is a pity—

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Onslow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tottenham failed to take advantage, which no doubt he could have, of his good fortune in getting an opportunity to speak, because he failed to understand that there was no necessary Closure of the debate which opened on Wednesday morning.
I do not wish to detain the House for long—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) must not make interjections from a sedentary position.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, all I was saying was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were making far more noise than I was.

Mr. Onslow: I apologise if I disturbed the hon. Gentleman's slumbers.
The purpose of my intervention in this debate is to ask the Minister when he replies, today or on some future occasion, to give us a more precise idea of the attitude which he is taking with him on his translation from one function to another. What is his attitude towards manpower in the Department which is a large employer? I think we were told that the Ministry of Technology now ranks fifth in the growth stakes in Whitehall, and its projected curve shows that it may rapidly overhaul one or two Ministries at the moment ahead of it. We should like to hear from the Minister


that economy in manpower is in prospect, and that we are not permanently doomed to watching the number of employees in Whitehall multiply as the number of employees in the industry dwindles.
That brings me to my second point. I hope very much that the Minister, having had some days to think about the brain drain figures which were produced by the S.B.A.C. last week, will be able to give us a clear idea whether he accepts their validity and what he intends to do about them.
Next, I should like to hear what the Minister's attitude is to certain projects. He has his red Concord tie on this morning. I am returning the compliment by having my blue one on. There is, of course, a green one. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has one, but if not, no doubt he will obtain one in due course.

Mr. Lubbock: My tie has been changed from green to orange.

Mr. Onslow: I think the Minister will probably agree that at the moment the Concord project is the core of the British aircraft industry, and that the work and research effort involved in it and projected over the next five or six years represents this as being the major endeavour and consumer of this technological effort. I think, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that Concord has its origins in the negotiations carried out, not by this Government, but by their predecessors, and that much of the reason for Concord being with us now rests in the very firm treaty which was concluded, and which, fortunately, made it impossible for this Government to wriggle out of it on the two occasions when they have sought to do so.
With regard to the airbus, I am not happy about the way in which the Minister still seems to be setting it up as project which he considers a serious one. I think that the technical difficulties involved in tri-national production must be at least twice as great as those involved in a bi-national project, as with Concord, and this is bound to increase costs and difficulties all round.
In his reply to a Parliamentary Question last Wednesday about the airbus the Minister said:

This project could be a very successful one and ensure that Britain remained in the subsonic aircraft field for the next 15 to 20 years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 487.]
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that this was the only project which would achieve that aim. I do not believe that this is so. I believe that there are other projects which have a much greater chance of being brought to success in time, and which could achieve the aim of keeping Britain in the subsonic aircraft field more economically and more successfully, and I hope that the Minister is not wedded to the airbus. In short, I hope that he will not perpetuate a mistake which has bedevilled the last 15 to 20 years of the history of British aircraft production, namely, of the industry being forced to take part in a project in which it does not believe and which it would not, if left to itself, build.
I think that in research there is a tendency to work to too many places of decimals. Last Wednesday I asked the Minister a question about certain research at Farnborough. His answer shows that the tests in question have been carried out for more than six years, and that even this year they are estimated to cost about £60,000. But the technique involved, that of the low-level dropping of stores and vehicles from aircraft, was successfully demonstrated in public in this country about three or four years ago, and it has been applied operationally by the United States forces for some years. I ask the Minister to think carefully whether it is necessary to spend money on research, working to the third and fourth places of decimals, when we probably know 98 per cent. of what we need to know on such subjects and could go on to something more profitable.
The aspect where there is need for money to be spent on research is on the subject of noise. This matter concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. They are anxious about the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade. The Minister may say that he does not think that this is a serious matter, but experience shows that divisions of responsibility are not advisable in research, and there is room for some unease on the question of the Government's future handling of this serious problem.
The House is still far from satisfied with the degree of Parliamentary ability to inquire into and exercise control over the activities of the Ministry of Aviation, as it has been, and the Ministry of Technology, as it will be. We do not know enough about it. We want to hear the Minister's view on the proper function of the Ministry, or the attitude that he would expect it to take towards the activities of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, because many of my hon. Friends want to see this become an effective weapon of Parliamentary probing into the affairs of his Department. We would not be content to see this Committee sidetracked off into making duplicated inquiries of its own, into matters which the Government should be getting on with and which are not the prime responsibility of a Parliamentary Committee. The purpose of the Committee must be to see that the Government are doing their job.
I hope that we can have a better system of answering Parliamentary Questions—a subject referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). Those of us who had down Questions to the Board of Trade on aviation matters last week were most disappointed at the understandable inability of the junior Minister of State replying to deal with matters which were probably not only new within his experience but only part of his total responsibility, and at the way in which these Questions are now scattered and fragmented amongst a whole series of Questions on other matters. This does not give me confidence in the House's future ability to bring a spotlight to bear on aviation matters.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that on the matter of Questions the Ministry of Technology should have at least the time which has been given to the Ministry of Aviation added to his own time?

Mr. Onslow: I would have added—so should the Board of Trade. Whether or not these are matters to which the Leader of the House—whose continued absence we go on deploring—will turn his attention, I do not know. Perhaps representations can be made to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has

pointed out that the Government benches are astonishingly bare at the moment. I can see only one back bencher opposite. Where all those eager souls are who wanted so much for us to take part in these proceedings, I do not know. Contrasting the empty wastes of the Government benches with the many hon. Members on this side of the House, I am led to wonder—

Mr. David Webster (Weston-superMare): Can my hon. Friend say whether the sole surviving back bencher on the Government side is the P.P.S. to the Leader of the House? If so, he may be able to convey our grievance to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Onslow: I should be out of order if I attempted to pursue that matter.

Mr. Dobson: Is it not irrelevant, anyway? As a matter of fact, I am not—but does that matter?

Mr. Onslow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is irrelevant or not.
Tribute has rightly been paid to the export performance of British aircraft industry in recent years. The Minister knows that the good performance that it is putting up is based on decisions taken, investments made and research carried out years ago, in many cases, and certainly in almost all cases before this Government came to power. I do not claim any credit for the Government that was in power then; I simply stress the fact that if we have had a good year and want to look forward to more good years, they must be based on performance. The Government are not going to be able to force the industry to be prosperous. The industry will prosper only if the right decisions are taken and, broadly speaking, only if it is left alone as much as possible by the Government.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Certain aspects of this transfer of function give room for improvement, if we realise what improvements need to be made. I want to turn back five years to the then lamentable concept of the administrative hierarchy within the Civil Service. I turn back to the month of July, 1962, when I asked the Minister of Aviation
what are the technical qualifications of the Permanent Secretary of his Department; and


what is his previous experience in the field of aviation?
I got the reply:
The qualifications required of a Permanent Secretary of a Government Department are that he should have those qualities of mind and character and that breadth of managerial and administrative experience which fit a man for the highest posts.
One might think that that was not a very direct answer. I then said:
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply.Will he now do me the courtesy of answering the Question on the Order Paper?
to which back came the response:
The qualifications required of the head of a Civil Service Department are not technical in the sense of being related to aviation or whatever may be the particular function of the Department. They are administrative. The Department has a large number of very competent technical staff who work under the Permanent Secretary and technical problems are in their hands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1962;Vol. 662, c. 98.]
Among the technical problems within their hands was the Ferranti contract.
My point is that if we have a technically illiterate Minister with a technically illiterate Permanent Secretary, who is in a position to gauge the calibre of the technical advice on which both Permanent Secretary and Minister must rely? This is a point of substance, because it needs to be stressed that the calibre of the technical advice in the old Ministry of Aviation, open to the Minister, was of a lamentably low level. Why was this? It certainly was not because of any lack of integrity on the part of the people concerned. We must look elsewhere for the reasons.
On 18th July, 1962—five years ago—I endeavoured to suggest some reason why the calibre of the technical advice open to the Minister was inadequate. I said:
The first is the internal policy of that Department because the days are really past when good advice can be given on a technical subject which emanates from a mind unclouded by knowledge. Such a mind can arise in one or two or both circumstances; first, because the person concerned has never been trained to appreciate the basic language of the scientific subjects, and secondly, because, with the best will in the world, if people have been out of contact with modern manufacturing and development processes in an industry in which the rate of technical development is very high indeed, it will be only good fortune if their technical judgment and advice is, in general terms, good and sound advice."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th July, 1962;Vol. 663, c. 511.]

This is the situation into which the Ministry of Aviation got itself. It took on to its technical staff people who were at one time very much up to date in the current problems and techniques in both industry and research. They were also, doubtless, men of integrity and competence. But, as the years went by, because of the seniority system within the Civil Service, these men achieved higher and higher status within the Department while their remoteness from reality increased in equal measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Order. His observations would, presumably, apply to either Ministry and have nothing directly to do with the Order, which relates to the dissolution of one.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that, in the knowledge that these problems exist, the opportunity will be taken, in re-forming the functions within the new Ministry of Technology, to overcome the problems which existed in the old Ministry. If all that happens is the grafting of the same unsatisfactory situation on to another Ministry, we shall not have used the opportunity as well as we might.

Mr. Dobson: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument a very powerful one for the move from the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology? Is not the Ministry of Technology much better able to meet commitments of the kind to which he is referring?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree that an opportunity is given for curing these ills—I hope that it will be taken—but I do not agree that we have to dissolve one Ministry in order to cure them, although, on balance, I think that they are more likely to be cured if the opportunity is taken.

Mr. Neil Marten: My hon. Friend said that a Minister is advised by civil servants who, though they were once good, have got out of touch. Is he not aware that a Minister may be advised by them but that any Minister worth his salt also gets other advice from outside, from the industry? He will never make a decision without taking advice from experts in the industry who are "spot on", like my hon. Friend, to advise him.
He does not rely only on his civil servants.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I accept that, but, equally, if the Minister acts against the advice of his professional advisers and there is then, shall we say, an unfortunate financial incident, the Committee of Public Accounts is likely to censure him greatly. Moreover, I remind my hon. Friend of the reply which the Minister gave me:
The Department have a large number of very competent technical staff who work under a Permanent Secretary and technical problems are in their hands.
The cure for this situation is not for the Minister to have to resort, in order to make up his own mind, to going outside the Department, useful as such a process undoubtedly is. He should take into his Department on short-term contracts people from industry. I say "short-term contracts" because, if he engages them on long-term contracts, we shall after a number of years be back where we were; he will be relying on technical advice from people who are technically obsolescent.
Many Government Departments have members of their staff present in manufacturing companies. I once worked for a firm in the aircraft industry in which there were literally hundreds, not dozens, of representatives from various departments, from the A.R.B., the A.I.D., the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Aviation, the Admiralty—literally hundreds of them, and many were of technically uninspiring calibre. The Royal Swedish Air Board had two representatives with the company, both technical captains, who were of extremely high calibre. They knew just about everything that was going on in the company. This brought home to me that one gets very much better value, as well as value for money, by employing a comparatively small number of people of very high calibre rather than an army of people of low calibre.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will take this opportunity, when embodying within the Ministry of Technology the functions which have belonged to the Ministry of Aviation, to do more than just transfer the same people, possibly in the same office but with a different telephone extension to give the impression that an alteration has been made.

Sir John Eden): One understands that there is to be no physical movement of any kind. There will just be a different label over the front of the door, and the men and women engaged in the Department will remain exactly where they are and doing the same job.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This may well be so. It is what happened when the Ministry of Supply ended. The notepaper just had "xxx" over "Supply" and "Aviation" typed at the top. The room number was the same, so was the telephone extension, and so were the squiggles at the bottom of the letters.
I exhort the Minister to pass on the request that something fundamental should be done in transferring these functions instead of just putting "xxx" over "aviation" on the notepaper. The opportunity must be taken to reorganise the structure so that the best up-to-date technical advice is available to the Minister without his having to solicit hospitality outside or meet someone privately. There are disadvantages in obtaining private advice. This is the other side of the coin. The Department is not aware of the advice which the Minister is being given.

Mr. Marten: What I had in mind in intervening earlier is that a Minister making up his mind on a highly technical matter will take advice from his officials, and he will then have a meeting with the Ministry officials and the industry round the same table to thrash the matter out. In the second place, has not my hon. Friend left out of account the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, the personnel at both of which are in direct touch with the industry, with a give and take and two-way traffic in ideas, all of which advice comes to the Ministry? It is by no means all out-of-date advice, though some of it may be.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is true, but the advice to which my hon. Friend refers is primarily research advice, not advice primarily concerned with manufacturing methods and costings, and it is on these latter questions that the contracting side of the Ministry in particular has got itself into such deep water. There have been many occasions on
which it was, or would have been, obvious to anyone technically literate that the sums of money involved were totally of the wrong order. I am referring not to detailed criticisms but to the fact that the quantities involved were of the wrong order.
This situation will not be remedied by typing "xxx" over the name of one Ministry on the notepaper and replacing it with a new one.

Mr. Graham Page: I am puzzled by the "xxx". Is it a brand of beer?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, but I can tell my hon. Friend, pursuing the simile behind that thought, that the process was definitely "x" rather than "xxx", let alone "xxxxx".
I have made the point. It is the point which I wish to put most forcibly in this debate. It has been within the spending functions of the Ministry, on the equipment and procurement side, that the greatest number of mistakes has been made, whichever party has been in office. These mistakes will continue if we have what I categorise, or caricature, as the old doctrine that "gentlemen do not understand engines". This is what lies at the back of it, the idea that people who are technically literate are to be mistrusted because they have access to some magic processes to which the Minister and his Permanent Secretary do not have access. This was the old tradition both in politics and in the Civil Service, and it has cost this country and the taxpayer an amount of money and wasted effort which the country cannot afford.

11.50 a.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I do not often take part in aviation debates because, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I have a mind unclouded by knowledge of that subject. It seems to me, however, that this moment of transfer of function provides a useful opportunity for the Minister to say a word or two of farewell and something about the future of Short Bros. and Harland in Belfast. I therefore want to ask him a question, the background to which is very serious in that unemployment in Northern
Ireland has risen from 5·7 per cent. last August to 8 per cent. now.
The Plowden Committee said:
If Shorts cannot survive as an aircraft unit without exceptional measures of support, then, in the Committee's view, they should cease to remain an independent company in the aircraft industry.
But the Report went on:
This conclusion ignores the wider economic, social, and political factors in Northern Ireland of which the Government has to take account. It is not for us to say how important these are.
Now that the Ministry of Aviation is to be absorbed, this would be an appropriate moment for the Government to make an announcement about future policy, and to say how important those factors are.
I shall not take over the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) in this matter—he was here when the debate started five days ago but he has not been able to get here today—but I should not like to miss the opportunity of giving the Minister a peg on which to hang a statement about the future of Shorts. Against the background of 8 per cent. unemployment, the anxieties for Shorts assume alarming proportions.
The company has been reorganised, but there is considerable anxiety about its long-term future. Nothing has been said about the extent to which diversification has taken place, or is likely to take place. So far as I know, the Government have said nothing on whether they intend to retain Shorts within the aircraft industry as an aircraft producer, and nothing has been said about the company's long-term structure. When he winds up—perhaps next Wednesday—will the Minister take the opportunity to say something about the future of Short Bros. and Harland? That matter is very important to us, and I hope that he will take it seriously.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who has had to leave the Chamber yet again—I do not know what is wrong with him—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has changed from green to orange."]—wondered why the Conservative Opposition were so worried about the change to be made by the Order. Surely anybody would recognise that a change of that magnitude takes
place at a time of special importance for the aviation industry and the space industry?
Without necessarily being opposed in principle to the amalgamation of Ministries, we must therefore be satisfied by the questions we ask and the answers we receive what the real reason for it is, and whether the new system will work better than the old. This is a very difficult moment, because the aviation industry perhaps exemplifies one of the problems which beset us more than any other at present, that is, the brain drain, which has most sinister implications for our country for the future unless some-thing is done about it fairly soon.
Our debate also comes at a time when the Government have decided that they can afford £2,000 million in dollars for American aircraft—aircraft which we could have built ourselves—and they must justify that remarkable decision. It also comes at a time when the whole future of the aviation industry is bound up with Anglo-French co-operation, by which alone it seems possible that the industry in this country can survive.
No fewer than four Ministries will now be involved in Anglo-French co-operation—the Ministry of Technology, the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office, and the Defence Department. All those important Ministries are intimately and deeply involved in the collaboration with France, and I do not see how the changes which have been proposed will help their co-operation. There is no coordinating Ministry, though I presume that the Ministry of Aviation would at least have been able to do the work of co-ordination. It might not have done it ideally, but it was nevertheless one Ministry which, to judge from its title, had the capacity to co-ordinate the activities of all those important Ministries in dealing with the French. Therefore, this is a strange moment to abolish it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not the hon. Member agree that this is a slightly bogus argument? Surely he does not suggest that the Ministry of Aviation can, for example, take over Foreign Office functions in this matter? And I doubt whether it could take over Board of Trade functions in it.

Mr. Kershaw: We are glad to welcome once again the hon. Member for West
Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I can see that the journey from Scotland is very long, for he has just been able to join us. If he had listened to what I said with the attention he often gives to our proceedings, he would have realised that I was not suggesting that the Ministry of Aviation could take over the Foreign Office. I imagine that the Foreign Secretary would object to that, for a start. But I suggested that when a number of Ministries was involved in important negotiations it was important to have a co-ordinator to co-ordinate their activities. I believe that the Ministry of Aviation might have been able to do that.

Mr. Webster: On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) about Foreign Office functions, he is probably aware that most Ministries gave up their treaty-making powers to the Foreign Office. In that case, it might be a good thing if the Ministry of Aviation kept them. My hon. Friend is sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who was a treaty-making Minister as Minister of Pensions. He signed a treaty with the Irish Free State in the presence of my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) made his intervention with such dazzling ingenuity that I am not sure that I could reply to it, but I entirely agree with every single word he has just said.
Anglo-French co-operation will obviously be the key to the future of the industry in this country. The United States at present provides over 50 per cent. of the aircraft used in Europe, but there are one or two hopeful signs, the most hopeful of which in Anglo-French co-operation is the Concord, predictably enough the one project the Government were determined to kill if they could, but they found that they could not get out of it. It has escalated in cost from £150 million to about £400 million but we have reason to suppose that we will be able to sell it all round the world.
This is the crux of the matter, because in Europe we have not enough buying power to be able to buy the products of collaboration between France and this country unless we also sell those products
all over the world as well. A number of projects have been launched. There is the air-launched guided missile called "Martel" which is now complete and which I understand the Ministry of Aviation was to have responsibility for trying to sell. Who is to take over that responsibility and what likelihood is there of selling it to nations other than France and England? It is important to know, and I hope that we shall have some answer.
Then there is the Jaguar trainer. This involves a most complicated management machinery process. There is a joint managing committee, with four members from each side of the Channel. There are two executives, one for engine manufacture and the other for airframe manufacture, the former being appointed from the French side and the latter, I understand, from this side. Each executive has a jointly owned subsidiary company to carry out the work.
This complicated machinery is peculiar to the Jaguar and illustrates that if we are to set up an entirely different organisation for every project there is real need for a single political Minister to be able to have over all regard to what is going on. So far as I know, the abolition of the Ministry of Aviation will not bring that about but will substitute a number of Ministers for one to supervise these complicated projects.
Then there is the variable geometry project on which huge sums are to be spent—if they are spent—and the helicopters. But it is no good France and England thinking that we are going to make a viable aircraft industry out of selling the products of these projects merely to ourselves. What are the chances of selling these products to other European countries? If we do not sell them, all these things will cost a tremendous amount of money because it is no good France and England merely taking in each other's washing.

Mr. Rankin: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about Britain and not just England.

Mr. Kershaw: The United Kingdom.
Last year the United States sold more than 400 commercial aircraft.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that, at our previous sitting, the occupant of the Chair ruled out of order the discussion of these aircraft and their sale. The hon. Gentleman must come closer to the terms of the Order.

Mr. Kershaw: There is perhaps a certain difficulty in sticking strictly to the Order. After the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) I thought that anything would go, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may just point out that Europe sold less than 50 commercial aircraft last year. The two figures show the measure of difference between our two countries in this respect. Collaboration with another country—Britain with France or whatever it may be—costs a great deal more money than if only one agency is involved. It is calculated as a rough guide that Anglo-French projects cost 25 per cent. more than they would if only one country was engaged. Clearly this must be true.
What kind of rules is the Minister to lay down in future for collaboration? In the past, certain errors have been made and as experience grows doubtless these will be corrected. But it was suggested at one time that every project should be shared 50 per cent. by each country. With projects of small calibre, this is very unproductive and now that we have far bigger projects I understand that the view of sharing is that one country should do one task and that the other should do another task, bringing them into collaboration in the end. What is our rôle in this collaboration? Is it to be under one Ministry, as it was under aviation?
There might be a further solution, of course, which is to bring in yet a third country—say, Germany—to collaborate with us in aircraft projects, giving the Germans an interest in buying the products, but this would be terribly cumbersome and that would increase the 25 per cent. extra costs. The new Minister should bear in mind the possible need to set up some sort of European aircraft procurement agency, something that would have at least the central direction of affairs, which would give an order direct to a company for what was required.
If the chain of command is to be as diffuse as it has been in the past, I do not think that we shall be able to compete with the American aircraft industry which is already far ahead of us, and I do not think that our making things together with France is enough. We must embroil other European countries which have orders to give, but we can only do so effectively if there is some European agency to do it.
I doubt whether the proposed set-up, with one Minister, and he not necessarily a very senior one, can possibly give a good result in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) mentioned the problems of defence. I cannot restrain myself from thinking that the Minister of Technology is not necessarily the best person to have an intimate knowledge of defence. It will be within the recollection of the House that, many years ago, when the late Sir Thomas Inskip was appointed Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, Sir Winston Churchill congratulated him on his great responsibility for which, he said, Sir Thomas's eminent qualities and high legal career had in no way fitted him.
I cannot help thinking that something of the same sort could be said of the Minister of Technology. Will he be able to concentrate on problems of defence, for a start? It is not even within his rescript to do so. When the Prime Minister announced his reorganisation, he said:
The organisation for research, development and procurement on aircraft, guided weapons and electronic equipment, whether civil or military will remain broadly in its present form; but under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology it will make a significant contribution to achieving our aim that the department should be a major instrument of progress in the engineering and electronic field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 940.]
It is clear that the Minister of Technology has his orders to concentrate on" spin-off" rather than upon weapons, so far as defence is concerned, and is bound to give priority, according to the Prime Minister, to the industrial rather than the defence import of any particular item.
Mention has been made of control of research. This is extremely important. In visiting the Royal Aircraft Establishment and other establishments, which

hon. Members have been able to do, I believe that some of us will have come away with the conclusion that, in a number of ways, we are falling behind the Americans in inventing the same things that they have. Sometimes it is necessary to do this, of course, because they cannot, because of their legislation, say what their secrets are.
There is, nevertheless, a tendency to try to improve on things which have already gone a long way and which absorb a large part of our resources. I believe that it was Sir Leon Bagrit, head of Elliott-Automation, who made the rule that one should never invent twice, or improve upon something already produced, because in the end it is a waste of time.
Are we to have any firm co-ordination of the variable geometry project by the new Ministry? One argument for the disappearance of the Ministry of Aviation is that the swing-wing project fills us all with the gravest possible doubts. It is not at all certain that the French want this; it is not certain that they can afford it. The communiqué issued the other day when the Secretary of State returned from Paris and announced that everything was now marvellous and that the future of the aircraft industry was assured, was by no means borne out by a statement from his French opposite number in Le Monde made on 17th January. Le Monde wrote, as a consequence of interviewing M. Bourges, that it would be decided at the end of the year whether to go on with the project or not. It is rather significant that in the English translation the words "or not" were omitted.
This makes us feel that it is extremely doubtful. One cannot blame the French too much for being a little chary about going ahead with this project. After all, they know what we tried to do over Concord and E.L.D.O. They have an aircraft and could possibly do this themselves. They are not sure that they want this aircraft or that they can pay for it. They want it much later than we do, and there are many break clauses in the contract negotiated by the Ministry of Aviation. I want to know whether the new Ministry will be able to sell this aircraft to the Germans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I drew the attention of the hon. Gentleman to


the fact that he was getting wide of order. He pointed out to me that the debate had gone rather wide earlier, but he has now exhausted the good will that he might have gained by that point. He must come back to the Order now.

Mr. Kershaw: I shall try to rebuild my balance of good will with you, Sir.
The new Ministry is in no way different from the Ministry of Aviation. The people are the same, just wearing different hats. It is remarkable to consider that we have about 6,000 of these worthy ladies and gentlemen whose sole project at the moment—the only order for military procurement—is for some Kestrels, and not many of those. This is an enormous administrative tail. All of these 6,000 civil servants stand between the user and the manufacturer. In the new set-up we have unfortunately perpetuated this arrangement. It has been pointed out that one of the Plowden recommendations was that there should be direct contact between the user and the Ministry, but here there will be this cushion of the new Ministry standing between these two parties. This is something that we must look at very closely.
In what way do the changes provide any likelihood that there will be better co-ordination than in the past? Another responsibility of this Ministry will be the work in space. The expenditure incurred in this respect is so immense that we must make very certain that the new organisation will be efficient. The most outstanding space project is E.L.D.O., which is a very sensible project. I have never been able to understand the criticisms of it from the other side of the House. It is true that it provided a convenient home for Blue Streak when it was no longer regarded as necessary for military purposes. But the Continental Europeans acquired the benefit of our "know-how" and this was a bargain in which both sides brought something and gained something.
Since those days this project has suffered from lack of supervision and co-ordination. Will the new Ministry be able to do any better than the old? The costs of the project have escalated from £70 million to £158 million. The reason for this is not only that technological costings were wrong and the

scientific evaluation of what was to be done was below par, but that there was no clear aim to the project. The Ministry never said exactly what was wanted. I hope that the new Ministry will be able to back up E.L.D.O. now that greater precision has been brought about as a consequence of decisions taken last April.

Mr. Marten: When E.L.D.O. was created no one knew how space research would develop, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Aviation had a very clear idea of what E.L.D.O. would eventually do. It was to have a civil use, for putting up scientific and communications satellites.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into too much detail on the question of co-ordination. He will be in order to make a reference to it.

Mr. Kershaw: The point is that while the Ministry of Aviation seems to have had a very good idea of what it wanted, I have no doubt that the machinery for putting its plans into operation with our European allies was not adequate, because the project ran away with money without any clear idea of exactly what it would do.
The co-ordination in the European project was made the more difficult because some countries concentrated their main effort on the national programme and others, such as ourselves, concentrated their main efforts upon the international programme. It is important for us to make up our minds about what our policy should be.

Sir J. Eden: Time is getting on, and I would like to put this question to the Minister through my hon. Friend. Is it likely to be the case that in future only the Minister of State will have Ministerial responsibility for all of these wide-ranging questions which in the past have been the responsibility of at least two Ministers in the Ministry of Aviation? There was a satisfactory division of Ministerial responsibility before, but I question whether under the new organisation the Minister of Technology will be directly concerned with these important matters to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Kershaw: That is a very important argument and I hope that we shall


have an answer from the hon. Gentleman. To some extent we are under suspicion about E.L.D.O., because we tried to get cut of it. The Foreign Secretary went to Paris saying that he would try to get out of it because it no longer accorded with our interests. Now that we have returned to the project, and it has been more precisely defined, my hon. Friend's question is very important. We have to restore our credit with this organisation and I hope that the new Ministry will be able to do this. At the moment this appears to be one of those hasty decisions, taken without consultation, such as we have unfortunately seen in Aden, in Malta, over the Concord, and in other directions.
Mention has been made of the functions which are being transferred to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order to discuss the functions which are being transferred to the Board of. Trade.

Mr. Kershaw: Some of the functions of the Ministry of Aviation are being given to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These were taken under another arrangement, not under this Order.

Mr. Kershaw: Various arguments were addressed to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, on this aspect of the question. I should like to know what the new Minister will do about the airport situation. Has the new Minister any responsibility for it under this Order? Presumably it is very important for the Minister of Technology to be fully consulted when we start to replan, as we are doing, our airports. Our international airport situation is absolutely chaotic at the moment. I blame no one for that. We are not the only country in the world that has this problem.

Mr. Stonehouse: This matter does not come within the question being discussed, namely, the functions being transferred to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to the Minister. My point is not that it is not within the Order, but that it jolly well ought to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss what ought or ought not to be in the Order. He can discuss only what is in the Order.

Mr. Kershaw: Perhaps I phrased that rather unfortunately. I hope very much that the Minister of Technology, who has taken over new functions from the Ministry of Aviation, will be able to give his views on what is undoubtedly a very important matter for the future of the aviation industry.

Sir J. Eden: I should have thought that as the development of supersonic air transport is now the responsibility of the Board of Trade, that none the less—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made his speech last week. He cannot make a second speech.

Mr. Stonehouse: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir J. Eden: May I be permitted to complete my sentence?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can intervene, but he cannot make a second speech.

Sir J. Eden: I am not doing so. I did not understand the point which you were making, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member was intervening on the speech of the hon. Member who had the Floor?

Sir J. Eden: I am doing so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must be brief.

Sir J. Eden: Surely, the whole question of the new radar controlled techniques and landing techniques, which would have to be developed to cope with supersonic transport, will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology? I think it is this aspect to which my hon. Friend is referring, and which is so particularly relevant to the Order.

Mr. Kershaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling attention to the matter. The airport situation in London is completely chaotic. Because the three possible airfields are so close together, the radar consideration is very important. There is no country in the world which


has not an airport problem of great dimensions. We have all made the mistake of thinking that air traffic would not develop and expand as fast as it has done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to whether the House should transfer functions of the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Kershaw: I am trying to keep in order, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to do so precisely with this Order because these technical matters are closely linked. Presumably I am in order, as the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Govan and he was in order in what he said. He pointed out that the Daily Express this morning reported that a decison had been reached about the new airfield. That was part of the hon. Member's speech. He said that the decision had been taken that Stansted should be the site of the new airport. If the hon. Member for Govan is right—and I have no doubt that he is, because he is never wrong—the new airport will be much closer than many people believe is technically desirable. What sort of control over the position will the Minister of Technology have?

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the Government's keenness to have morning debates, is it in order for a backbencher to read a newspaper?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for an hon. Gentleman to read a newspaper in the House, unless he is preparing himself to participate in the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I was reading an article in Le Monde of 17th January, to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) referred earlier.

Mr. Birch: On a point of order. The hon. Member may or may not be reading a newspaper, but for the first time in my experience, there are no newspapers—at least there were not a short time ago—either in the Smoking Room or in the Tea Room. Is this a symptom of the breakdown of morning sittings?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's point of order will be looked into.

Mr. Kershaw: I was about to say that if the hon. Member for West Lothian was reading Le Monde, then I congratulate him on his expertise in being able to read a newspaper whose language is also terribly out of order, in order to prepare a speech. However, it cannot be a speech in this debate, because he has already spoken.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not address himself to a point of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Kershaw: The Minister of Technology has a very great airport responsibility. We should like to know what are the possibilities, if the report in the Daily Express is not accurate, of the third airport for London being removed further away, perhaps down to the mouth of the Thames or to other places. The technical reasons for moving the airport further away from Heathrow and Gatwick are very strong indeed. Is the Minister of Technology taking any part in this decision? If he is not, it just shows that he has too much to do, that he has too many functions, that he is thinking of defence, of industry, of spin-off, or boat-building, and of all sorts of funny things. It shows that his mind is not centred upon what is, after all, the most important part of our national economic life today, namely, the advancement of technology.

Mr. Marten: Before my hon. Friend leaves that question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair. This helps the reporters.

Mr. Marten: Before my hon. Friend leaves this most interesting airport question, may I point out that what is in the mind of many of us is the question of the safety of aircraft? The Inspector of Accidents, as I understand it, goes—quite wrongly—to the Board of Trade, when all the advisers, who will advise him on the technicalities of the accidents and so on, are with the Ministry of Technology. By this dichotomy of responsibility for accidents, this movement of the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology is thoroughly bad.

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I refuse to have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has drawn attention to a technically interesting and important question, and I hope that later in the debate he will have an opportunity of developing it. It is the sort of question to which we must have an answer. I hope that we shall have some pronouncement from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman has tried several times to intervene without success. He has either been counted out or has not been listened to. I hope, however, that he will be able to intervene before the debate ends in order to reply to the many queries which have been raised. We have many hours before us in which to debate this subject, and we would welcome at some time or other the intervention of the Minister so that we might be satisfied about the transfer being made from the Ministry of Aviation to the Ministry of Technology.

Sir J. Eden: May I make this point, because so far we have had only four and a half hours to debate this extremely important issue of dissolving a Ministry responsible for the expenditure of £650 million—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Loveys: I find myself in a somewhat ironical situation. Having spoken against certain procedural changes which are likely to make Parliament a body less representative of all the interests in the country, including morning sittings, I am delighted at being fortunate enough to obtain the first Adjournment debate to take place on a Monday morning on a matter which is of great concern to most coastal constituencies, particularly mine.
The problem of oil pollution of the beaches is very old. It affects almost every coastal constituency to a greater or lesser extent. It affects our holiday industry, which is the largest dollar-earning industry in the country and which is going through a particularly tough time in many ways under the present Government. I should be out of order if I referred to that matter this morning.
I admit straight away some reluctance in drawing attention to this matter since one has the fear that the impression may be created that all our beaches are covered with oil and tar, which would deter holiday makers. This, of course, is not a true picture, and the Government have a wonderful opportunity of relieving the anxieties which have been caused by giving two definite assurances to the House.
The first is that further efforts will be made to disperse the oil at sea which is the cause of the pollution of the beaches. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Board of Trade, with us, as well as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because this is very much a problem which affects both Ministries. The second point on which I hope we shat' have an assurance is that before further efforts to disperse the oil at sea become more successful grants will be made to help local authorities to clear beaches when particularly serious outbreaks occur. It is on these two points that I wish to address my remarks and stress the need for Government action.


Before doing that, I should like to say a few words about the menace itself. The most unpleasant factor is undoubtedly the terrible suffering inflicted on birds. There has been a tremendously wide Press coverage lately by such diverse publications as The Times, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Daily Mirror and the Sun and many local newspapers which have the problem on their doorstep. I am sure that the Minister, who has made local inquiries in my constituency, is aware of the articles in the Chichester Observer and the West Sussex Gazette covering the most serious pollution which has taken place and the Bognor Regis Post covering the smaller outbreak in that area.
On 24th January The Times had an article which rightly referred to "a southern massacre". It had made a survey of a five-mile stretch around Selsey Bill. The article stated:
It is impossible to know the real toll but about 5,000 birds died recently from oil in the Medway".
It is certainly true that on some of the beaches in my constituency hundreds of birds, dead and dying, have been picked up. The birds take from two days to three weeks to die in great pain. The diver varieties suffer the worst. They dive down through the oil and up through it. It gets in their lungs and they suffer great pain. The birds which float on the oil suffer later when they try to clean themselves and get the tar inside them. The R.S.P.C.A. does a wonderful job in cleaning the birds, but it finds it impossible to clean them without removing some of the natural oils on which the birds rely for protection.
Another unpleasant factor is the hardship caused to holidaymakers and the tourist trade. The oil clings to one's clothes. It is most unpleasant and very damaging. Many hoteliers and boarding house keepers have had carpets and furniture ruined when the substance is brought in inadvertently. It is no wonder that local authorities have received many letters from would-be holidaymakers asking whether they could guarantee that their beaches would be free from oil. It is difficult for local authorities to answer these letters unless the Government give firm assurances of help.
A definite step forward was taken in the efforts which are made to solve this

problem when an international agreement was signed on 12th May, 1954, not to discharge oil near coasts, but not every maritime nation signed this agreement. I understand that even today many of those which did sign have not ratified the agreement. I should welcome an assurance that every action is being taken to get this agreement, which is now 13 years old, properly ratified. According to the Sunday Times of only yesterday, a new break-through in research is expected in this country. I should welcome any news that there is to give about this.
The oil companies have been doing considerable research. They are naturally very worried about oil pollution. They are spending large sums of money on research. There is also the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea, which has been set up for many years and which meets regularly. Its president is none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is very keen on this subject. He was Chairman of the Committee for many years. I should have thought that there would not be much difficulty in getting money from the right hon. Gentleman for this matter.
There is a so-called early warning system concerning the oil slicks noticed at sea. The Minister of State, Board of Trade, in reply to a Question of mine on 27th January, said:
When coastguards receive information about oil patches off-shore, they immediately notify local authorities
which are
assisted in dealing with offshore pollution by the Services as the resources of the latter allow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 381–2.]
What does this mean? What are the resources available to the Services to help in this important matter?
That they are unsatisfactory and not working properly has been proved recently by a large patch of oil, estimated at 15 miles in length, seen floating in the English Channel on 16th January which was washed ashore two days later. It is all very well to say that the local authorities knew that it was there, but they have no power to deal with the oil until it reaches their beaches. I should like to know whether the early warning system can be tightened up so that the Services have better resources to deal


with the oil before it reaches the beaches. Whatever international agreement is made about discharging oil at sea, it cannot deal with the problem of accidents at sea and near the shore. Therefore, there are bound to be occasions when oil is washed ashore.
This brings me to the main problem with which the debate is concerned—the need for Government help in cleaning up the beaches. The reason I feel that this should be treated as a national problem can be best illustrated by the recent very serious outbreak in my constituency. A large patch of oil or tarry substance—some of the lumps were very big—arrived on a stretch of about 11 miles of beach in the area of the Chichester Rural District Council. Mr. Giles, the clerk of that council, has sent me some helpful notes about it, saying that the lumps varied from the size of large pebbles to pools of 10 to 20 feet in diameter and 7 inches in depths. The material was semi-plastic and strongly adhesive.
In reply to another Question of mine, on 27th January, the Minister of State, Board of Trade said that
there is no clear evidence of the source of this pollution and therefore no action can be taken against the offender."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 381.]
The problem in this type of attack is that there is no remedy when one does not know the source of the trouble.
Bognor Regis Council, which has taken quick action to remove oil from its beaches, has had previous experience and has been able to recoup the costs from the offenders, but on this occasion it does not know to whom to turn. Fortunately, however, the problem in that area on this occasion is not very extensive.
I turn to the problem which faces Chichester Rural District Council. I stress that it is a rural district council and not a mighty, wealthy conurbation. It has 11 miles of beach which is affected. I understand that 10 miles is in the council's ownership and that about one mile is privately owned. The council informs me that it would cost something like £10,000 to clean up the beaches from simply this one attack. It is making a gallant start to do this—I cannot use any other word than "gallant"—but this is nothing less than a disaster which is caused by factors completely outside

the control of the council, whose beaches are used for the enjoyment of people from all over the country.

Sir Charles Taylor: Was the recent oil on the beaches in my hon. Friend's constituency due to the sea of oil of 16th January? Was a request made for helicopters to deal with it? If so, why did nothing happen?

Mr. Loveys: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. This is my point about the early-warning system and the fact that it is not working satisfactorily. I am not sure whether the helicopters were asked to join in. I spoke to the station commander at the time, when they were busily engaged. The slicks were noticed and, I understand, reported, but the duties for the Services are not exactly laid down. They should be laid down so that the early-warning system works satisfactorily.
This should be regarded as a matter for Government help. The local authorities are no more responsible for this disaster than they were for the need for wartime defences. They were given a 100 per cent. grant for removing the wartime defences. They even get a 50 per cent. grant, and sometimes as much as 60 per cent., from the Government for ordinary sea defence work. There is urgency for relief work when flood damage occurs. The problem of oil pollution should be looked at again and specific grants should be given for what is a real need for emergency relief.
The cost to the Exchequer would not be very much, because on many occasions it would all be recouped when the culprit was found and had to pay damages. In a case like the present one, however, when enormous expense is caused to a comparatively small authority which does not know to whom to turn to recoup the cost, it is a very serious matter. It may be that the rural district council could obtain help from the county council—I do not know; but nothing is laid down that the county council must help. The present situation is that the rural district council is the responsible body for finding the whole cost. I ought to declare my interest as a ratepayer in the district.
I hope that we will get something more than just sympathetic noises from the Government about this disaster which


has hit my constituency, about future sudden disasters which may hit any part of the coast at any time and, above all, about specific plans to deal with oil pollution before it actually reaches the beaches.

12.44 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I should like briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys). This is a matter which I have raised in the House during the whole time of my membership. We know of the damage both to birds and bikinis, and we know what something must be done centrally about this problem because local efforts will not suffice.
There are two problems. One is the prevention of discharge of oil from tankers and the washing of ships' ballast tanks. Those responsible on ships always say that somebody else has caused the trouble with the result that it is almost impossible to catch the offender.
The other problem relates to the question of curing the trouble. I have it on the best possible authority that the Navy has both the means and the resources for destroying, dispersing, sinking or precipitating floating oil. The tragedy, however, so I am told by the Navy, is that it is not called in for the very reason mentioned by my hon. Friend, namely, that local authorities are apprehensive of the burden of oil floating inshore and wait to the very last moment hoping that the wind will change and the oil will go somewhere else. Finally, when they see it descending upon them they telephone in panic for the Navy, but by that time it is too late.
So that we should not suffer this rather idiotic state of affairs, there should be a central organisation and funds for the destruction of the oil. The money might somehow be side-stepped as a central matter from the general grant so that resources are available to be used no matter what part of our beaches are fouled.

12.46 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I join the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) in expressing my pleasure that

we are able to have this important discussion at a known time and under calm conditions rather than in the small hours of the morning. This enables us to look at these problems with the seriousness that they deserve and in a dispassionate manner. I do not in any way hide the seriousness of the problem. As the hon. Member has said, it is cruel to birds. It is very unpleasant for people who want to enjoy the beaches, and it is often, at some stage, an obvious wanton piece of indifference to other people's rights, happiness and enjoyment when the oil is discharged in this way.
I would like to look at some of the problems that have been put to us, but let me first grasp the main nettle concerning grants. The Government have no power to give specific grants towards this work and, as was said when we discussed this matter during the passage of the Local Government Bill, they do not at the present stage intend to obtain those powers. I am not saying that we are rigid about the matter and that we are indifferent to the problems, but, for reasons which I will make presently. I do not think that the financial burden is the most critical problem.
The hon. Member has mentioned the particular bad case facing Chichester Rural District Council, which I recognise, is a different problem from that of a large town. Even in the case of the Chichester R.D.C., however, the cost was about a penny rate. Although a penny rate is a burden for anyone, it has to be balanced against other authorities which have to cope with their own particular problems. Some places have problems of smoke abatement which are very acute. Some have special problems in dealing with refuse disposal and sewage which are, perhaps, easier in some of the places on the coast. Therefore, to look at the problem in perspective—

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that many coastal towns have a very great problem concerning sewage disposal and that in the past his Ministry has given grants towards direct disposal into the sea, which is now very much criticised, and that it is extremely expensive to pipe it a long way out to sea and often quite impracticable to pump it back and deal with it on land?

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to get diverted into an entertaining discussion on that matter. I merely put the view of a North Country Member of Parliament from an industrial constituency who sometimes wonders whether people on the coast realise their advantages. I do not want to be cold or unhelpful about the problems of local authorities, but I do say that at the moment one would not have a case for choosing this particular problem for a specific grant, particularly at time when the policy of the Government, largely supported by the Opposition, has been to move from specific grants to a general rate support grant.
If I may explain the position about dispersal, it is that dispersal at sea is not a Government responsibility. The Government's responsibility is confined to detecting offenders and trying to bring them to book. ft is perfectly true that the Royal Navy has done a great deal of work which has been of enormous help. I am glad that hon. Members have mentioned that. What it has been able to do is certainly of importance, but it does not do it as a duty, and nor is it the duty of the central Government.
The difficulties are not entirely a matter of the cost of doing it. With developments in the Navy and the growth of extremely complicated and highly sophisticated ships of war, the Royal Navy is not equipped for this sort of work. So it is not just a question of the cost of doing it. Some local authorities have powers to undertake dispersal work in tidal waters, and to disperse the oil before it reaches the beaches.
The hon. Member for Chichester asked about the International Convention. The position now is that 31 countries have accepted the Convention, and they include most of the major maritime countries. As a result of the Convention, in this country the Oil in Navigable Waters Act was passed in 1955. That gives harbour authorities, conservancy boards and sea fisheries committees the power to start prosecutions against people who are caught polluting the sea in this way. But enforcement of the law is always a problem. It is no use having legislation making it an offence unless offenders can be caught and brought to book. There have been quite a number of prosecutions, though not enough

against the background of the damage which has been done.
One point to which I would draw attention is that, under the Act, a court can order compensation to be paid to the authority responsible for clearing away some of the damage which has been caused. It is not for us to tell the courts what to do, but my right hon. Friend would very much welcome it if that power were used. As yet, it has not been used very often, but it would be helpful if that kind of compensatory grant could be made.

Dr. Bennett: Do those powers extend to proceedings against wrecks pouring out oil, of which there are a couple littering the Solent now? If there is a disaster to a ship, can the hon. Gentleman say whether proceedings can be taken against that ship, although it has suffered a disaster?

Mr. MacColl: My first thought would be that it would not be possible. However it is a point that I shall look at and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does not the problem mostly arise from tankers cleaning tanks at sea, which they should not do? Are facilities for cleaning tanks ashore increasing? They were quite insufficient a few years ago.

Mr. MacColl: Those are the kinds of points which are being looked at. We are not in any way adopting the position that we have solved the problem and are doing nothing more about it. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are engaged in quite a number of pieces of work on the subject. For example, the Warren Spring Laboratory of the D.S.I.R. has carried out experimental work on techniques for the removal of oil from beaches, including full scale trials at Shoeburyness and Eastbourne. A report containing some valuable information has been sent to coastal local authorities. There is a technical working group which has been mentioned once or twice in answer to Questions consisting of representatives of the local authority associations and the Institute of Petroleum, which started work in October. Its terms of reference were to find an efficient and economical way of combating oil pollution on beaches. I notice that the chairman of that group said at a recent Press


conference that he hoped its report would be in my right hon. Friend's hands by mid-summer. The group has also sent a questionnaire to some 500 local authorities about their experience and about expenditure on these problems. That should give us a very valuable background of information on which to base any further examination of the subject.
It is a very serious and difficult subject. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have concurrent responsibilities for it, and they keep in close contact with each other to try and solve the problem.
I welcome this opportunity of having a discussion about it. It is important that we should keep it in mind and make it clear to the public that we are worried about the position and anxious to explore some ways of improving it. If what I say is thought to be inconclusive, it is due to the fact that we have started these various different movements and inquiries to try and assess the position. When we get full information, it will be possible to come to a rather more balanced decision about the best way of tackling it. I hope that the House would regard this debate as essentially an interim one at the moment and not a final answer on some of the acute and difficult problems which have been raised—

Mr. Loveys: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has sat down. Sir Charles Taylor.

12.58 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not think that I am being brutal when I say that I regard his reply as very unsatisfactory. If there is a sea of oil floating up the Channel which lands on one seaside resort, just missing other resorts on the way, I cannot see why the one poor resort which is hit by the oil should be responsible for the money involved in cleaning it up. I feel that the Government must accept responsibility. After all, they are trying to get people to spend their holidays in this country. They are publicising our resorts throughout the world through the British Travel Association, and I regard clean beaches as absolutely pre-eminent among the problems of our holiday resorts.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) will not let this matter drop. We shall all pursue the Government, because I am quite certain that it is their responsibility to clean up our beaches which ships foul through no fault of the resorts concerned.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Social Security when the increase in the basic old-age pension will be given.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I would remind my hon. Friend that the value of the present rates of National Insurance retirement pensions is appreciably greater in real terms than that of any previous rates, and that we have made important increases and improvements under the supplementary pensions scheme which started only just over two months ago.

Mr. Winnick: Although many pensioners have been helped by the social security minimum, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a strong case for some increase being made in the basic old-age pension in the near future? Would she inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such increases should not be stopped because of any pressure from international financial sources?

Miss Herbison: In considering when an increase is due, all the facets must be considered. The rates introduced in 1965 were 18 per cent. higher than the previous rates. There has been an increase of 8 per cent. in the Index of Retail Prices. Therefore, I think that the Government can take some credit, first for granting the biggest increase ever, and, secondly, for their success in holding down prices, which is the most important thing for old people.

Miss Pike: Nevertheless, will not the Minister agree that the pension for the single person has fallen by 6s. ld. and for married couples by 9s. 11d., due to the increase in the cost of living? The cost of living is still increasing. She must regard this very seriously, because this is a record for the speed at which the value of the pension has been falling.

Miss Herbison: I assure the hon. Lady that I regard it as a serious matter. But,

even today, the pension is higher than it ever was in purchasing value during the whole 13 years of the Tory Government.

Social Services (Review)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Social Security when the review on the social services and social security will be published.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to publish that section of the general review of the social services which particularly concerns the disabled and the chronic sick.

Mr. Haseldine: asked the Minister of Social Security when the review of social security will be completed and an announcement on the graduated pension scheme made.

Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 28th November.—[Vol. 737, c. 5.]

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling on this side of the House that the report should be published as soon as possible? Does she agree that there are still many people who were neglected under the Tories and who desperately need additional benefits to improve their standard of living?

Miss Herbison: I would agree entirely that there is poverty, particularly amongst children. We have not awaited the completion of the whole review. As one part was ready, such as earnings-related short-term benefits, we brought it forward. When our proposals for supplementary pensions and other benefits were ready, we brought them forward. The most important outstanding part of the review, which must come forward as quickly as possible, is that dealing with children.

Mr. Astor: Does not the Minister agree that the need for special help for the disabled and chronic sick is readily recognised? In view of the urgency, will she give a firm undertaking to bring forward that part of the review without necessarily waiting for the whole review to be completed?

Miss Herbison: We have no intention, on any part of the review, to wait until the whole review is completed. The Ministry of Social Security Act has helped some of the chronic sick. I realise only too well how much has still to be done.

Mr. Haseldine: Is the Minister aware that the details of this review are anxiously awaited because of the concern which is felt about the existing graduated pension scheme inaugurated by the Conservative Government?

Miss Herbison: Yes, I realise this very well. Wherever I go to speak, the one point which is always stressed is the need to get rid of the present graduated pension scheme.

Miss Pike: Is the right hon. Lady saying that as soon as she has the answers to some of the very difficult social problems we are facing, she will bring in social legislation? Does this mean that at the moment she has not got the answers on the policy for child poverty or for the disabled group?

Miss Herbison: There are many ways of dealing with child poverty. We must be certain that the correct way of dealing with it is chosen. If the Conservative Administration had done some of the work which was necessary, especially as there were poor children at that time, we might have been much nearer the mark now.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Social Security what progress has been made in the review of the contribution record and other regulations affecting the payment of widows' benefits.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the period of widow's allowance has recently been extended from 13 to 26 weeks, and a new earnings-related widow's supplementary allowance has been introduced. The review of other aspects of the structure of widows' benefits is continuing. I am writing to my hon. Friend about the individual case which I think he has in mind.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my hon. Friend's Answer, but does not he agree that some of the contribution require-

ments are incomprehensible and are very often felt to be most unfair? Will he do something to speed up the further review of problems of the kind which the individual case which I put forward illustrates?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that the regulations are incomprehensible, but they are complicated, and are bound to be so. In fact, some of the problems faced by my hon. Friend's constituent arise out of the easements and concessions recently introduced.

Miss Pike: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are some serious anomalies in this, and that the sooner his right hon. Friend gets on with the review the better? I am thinking particularly of the woman who marries a second time and becomes widowed. She then finds herself in an extremely anomalous situation.

Mr. Loughlin: We agree that there are difficulties here, but, as the hon. Lady knows—I do not want to spell out the concessions which have recently been granted since this Government came to power—we are having almost a continuous review, and we hope that simplification will emerge from it.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that the payment of unemployment benefits on a day-to-day basis operates to the disadvantage of the five-day worker, relative to the six-day worker and what steps she is taking to change this day-by-day calculation of unemployment benefit for workers on short-time.

Miss Herbison: I am aware that many complications arise over the payment of unemployment benefit to workers on short time. However, it is the Government's view that employers should he responsible for their employees during short-time working, and under the National Insurance Act, 1966, the payment of unemployment benefit to workers on short time will end in March, 1969.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is she aware that at present the normal period of payment for the great bulk of industrial workers is the week and they therefore


feel very badly treated when they find, on being unemployed for one day, that they get only one-sixth of a week's unemployment benefit and not one-fifth? Will my right hon. Friend undertake in the short term to look at the period of payment for unemployment?

Miss Herbison: The difficulties of administering a scheme with two different bases, which is what my hon. Friend is asking for, of calculating benefit for odd days, would be out of all proportion to the amounts involved to the individual claimant.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister must know of cases where a five-day week is being worked by some sections of workpeople and a six-day week by another, according to the type of machinery used. Can she at least make some arrangements to remove the discrepancies which arise in such cases and which are caused entirely by the type of equipment used?

Miss Herbison: Some workers at an establishment work five days and others work six days per week. I am still convinced that it would not be worth while to have two different bases of calculation.

Released Prisoners (National Insurance Cards)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Social Security what are the difficulties which prevent the amendment of the existing regulations to permit the National Insurance card of a prisoner to be stamped, prior to his release, for the period of his detention.

Miss Herbison: The National Insurance Regulations do not preclude the payment of contributions in respect of prisoners at the non-employed rate. Before I could make amending regulations to provide for contributions to be paid at the employed person's rate for prisoners not working under a contract of service, I should need to be satisfied that the prisoners could reasonably be regarded as wage earners in an analogous position to employed persons. The present arrangements for work by prisoners—including the level of remuneration—do not appear to fulfil this requirement.

Mr. Archer: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that many helpful promises

of rehabilitation founder because the prisoner's past comes to light, not merely to the employer, but also to everybody in the wages office? Will she look at this matter again, whatever the status of prisoners may be under the Contracts of Employment Act?

Miss Herbison: I have already looked at all these matters. There are many other reasons, apart from a person's being in prison, why his cards are not stamped and he therefore has not a complete record. In view of the pressure from students, and of the pressure which might come from those who are exempted because of low income, there would be a great deal of criticism if only prisoners were selected for very special treatment.

Single Women (Dependent Relatives)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she will take to deal with poverty arising in cases where single women have to give up their jobs in order to care for dependent relatives.

Miss Herbison: These women are already eligible for supplementary benefit under the new scheme if their relatives cannot reasonably be expected to pay for their services.

Mr. Hamling: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that women doing this job are performing a very useful social purpose which, if it were not done by them, would cost the nation dear? Will she not recognise this formally and not leave it as an adjunct of the social security scheme?

Miss Herbison: I am very conscious indeed of the wonderful work that so many of these women do. At present about 11,000 single women are receiving supplementary benefit in such circumstances. If there is the likelihood of their returning to work, an addition is made to the supplementary benefit to allow them to pay their National Insurance contribution so that their own pension rights particularly will be safeguarded

Short-Time Workers

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will introduce legislation to ensure that short-time workers who have worked 11 or
S4


12 weeks of short time in a 13-week period receive full benefit for the first three days of unemployment.

Miss Herbison: Unemployment benefit is already payable for the first three days of unemployment, known as waiting days, where there are at least 12 days of unemployment or sickness, apart from isolated days, in a 13-week period.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that many Vauxhall workers in the Luton area find themselves in the position that after working 11 short weeks in a 13-week period they do not receive their three waiting days' payment merely because they work an intermediate week during the period at the firm's request?

Miss Herbison: I understand that there was a small group of about 20 to 30 workers who did not have the necessary 12 days of unemployment, and it was because of this that they did not qualify for the payment of waiting days. Indeed, it was because they worked longer than the others.

Family Allowances

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make a statement on the future level of payment of family allowances.

Miss Herbison: I have nothing at present to add to my replies to Questions on this subject on 30th January. [Vol. 740, c. 28-30.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that a statement should be made as early as possible in view of the very considerable anxiety on both sides of the House about this matter?

Miss Herbison: I certainly agree, and the Government are getting on as urgently as possible.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether, when making the statement, she will include factors other than purely financial, such as the effect of housing, and perhaps the need for care in kind for those families which for one reason or another have shown themselves unable to cope, and might not be fully benefiting by the

allowances? Will she include these elements, too?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Department is responsible for the financial aspects, but I assure him that all the other social aspects are being considered.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Social Security what is the present value of family allowances expressed in terms of their monetary value in 1956, when they were last revised.

Miss Herbison: On the basis of the Retail Prices Index, family allowances are now worth about 74 per cent. of their value at the time of the last revision in October, 1956.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that a social security benefit of this importance should be allowed to decline in value over a period of 11 years without action being taken? Will she treat the revision of these allowances as a matter of the greatest urgency?

Miss Herbison: The Government are treating this as a matter of great urgency, especially as we have found from our review that there are about 500,000 children whose families are living on a lower income than the supplementary benefits income.

Miss Vickers: Has the right hon. Lady any thought of tying family allowances to the cost of living?

Miss Herbison: I do not know whether that would be a very good thing. It is like tying pensions and other similar provisions to the cost of living. Pensioners would be very much worse off today if their pensions had been tied to the cost of living.

Deserted Wives

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Social Security how many women are in receipt of benefit as a result of being deserted by their husbands; and what is the total expenditure for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966.

Mr. Loughlin: The latest estimate is that in November, 1965 there were about 104,000 separated women receiving regular weekly payments of National


Assistance. The number who had been deserted by their husbands is not known. At that time the net yearly rate of expenditure was about £25 million; it was £21 million in 1964.

Dame Joan Vickers: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider keeping a separate list of women who are deserted? I think that this is very important. What real effort does his office make to trace husbands once there has been a court order against them?

Mr. Loughlin: Trying to trace them does present problems, but we do everything that we can. I shall bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion about trying to separate the figures, but even this is difficult.

Mr. Crawshaw: As many of these people persistently desert their wives and children and leave them as a charge on local funds, can my hon. Friend say whether he has had any negotiations with other Departments to have insurance cards stamped to this effect so that when a person moves to another exchange some central registry can be notified of the new address?

Mr. Loughlin: The difficulty is that of ensuring that the stamped cards will be carried on, because, as my hon. Friend knows, if a person loses his insurance card he can go to any of a number of offices and secure a copy card. Consequently, it would be very difficult to operate a system of this kind. I assure my hon. Friend that we have great sympathy with those affected. We do whatever we can to assist, but, beyond that, I do not think that there is anything that we can do.

Miss Pike: The hon. Gentleman said that everything possible is done. Can he give one concrete example of what is being done to find these people?

Mr. Loughlin: We attempt to trace the husbands, because, as the hon. Lady knows, in many instances we collect the allowance for the wife and ensure that she is paid by us.

Separated and Divorced Women

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Social Security how many women divorced or separated have been in receipt, of payment because their maintenance money is not being paid by their husbands, or is not sufficient to support

them and their family, in the years 1964, 1965, and 1966; and what is the total expenditure.

Mr. Loughlin: Information is available for 1964 and 1965 only. As it consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dame Joan Vickers: As many of these women cannot provide themselves with sufficient money without going to Social Security, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask his right hon. Friend to amend the Maintenance Orders Act so that the amount of money originally granted by the court can be put up?

Mr. Loughlin: Does the hon. Lady mean increased?

Dame Joan Vickers: Yes.

Mr. Loughlin: I should like to look at that one and write to the hon. Lady about it.

Following is the information:

SEPARATED AND DIVORCED WOMEN IN RECEIPT OF NATIONAL ASSISTANCE


Number (estimated)
Yearly rate of assistance expenditure (estimated)


1964
1965
1964
1965


112,000
118,000
£25,340,000
£32,280,000


Estimated total of payments received by former National Assistance Board 
£2,340,000
£2,700,000


Estimated net rate of expenditure
£23,000,000
£29,580,000

Notes:

1. Information based on a one-and-a-quarter per cent. sample taken in November of all National Assistance recipients. The estimated yearly rate of expenditure is arrived at by multiplying the weekly amount of assistance paid at the time of the inquiry by 52.

2. A small number of divorced women who have illegitimate children are not included in the above figures.

3. About 9,000 separated women had no title to maintenance payments (being e.g. the matrimonial offender).

Supplementary Pensions

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Social Security how the supplementary pension increase of up to 14s. a week, granted recently to thousands of pensioners, compares with other increases in the pension since 1945.

Miss Herbison: As the information consists of a table of figures, I will, with


permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The increases in March, 1965 and November, 1966 in the basic householder scale rate represent a total increase of 27·6 per cent. over the previous rate, and the real value of this basic rate has increased by 17·1 per cent. since October, 1964. These figures take no account of the new 9s. long-term addition for pensioners.

Mr. Allaun: As this welcome increase is the biggest for many years since 1946, why have the Government not sung their praises more loudly? Is it through fear that speculators in London or Zurich may allege gross extravagance and start another run on the £?

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. I have done everything possible to get publicity for this. There is no doubt that the publicity has reached the ears of about 600,000 old people in this country, and I am delighted about it.

Miss Pike: Is not the answer to the question probably that already the single pension has dropped in value by about 6s., and the double pension has dropped by about 9s.?

Miss Herbison: The most important figure is that they are still 17·1 per cent. better than before we introduced the biggest ever increase in March, 1965.

Following is the table:

INCREASES IN SCALE RATE FOR A PENSIONER WITHOUT DEPENDENTS LIVING AS A HOUSEHOLDER


(Figures for 1948–1965 relate to National Assistance scheme)


Year
Scale rate (excluding provision for rent)
Increase over previous rate
Percentage increase (over previous rate)



s. d.
s. d.
per cent.


1945
20 0
—
—


1948
24 0
4 0
20·0


1950
26 0
2 0
8·3


1951
30 0
4 0
15·4


1952
35 0
5 0
16·7


1955
37 6
2 6
7·1


1956
40 0
2 6
6·7


1958
45 0
5 0
12·5


1959
50 0
5 0
11·1


1961
53 6
3 6
7·0


1962
57 6
4 0
7·5


1963
63 6
6 0
10·4


1965
76 0
12 6
19·7


1966
*81 0
*5 0
*6·6



†90 0
†l4 0
†l8·4


*Basic scale rate of new supplementary benefit.


†Basic scale rate plus long-term addition of 9s. appropriate to all pensioners except those in Part III accommodation and most of those in hospital.

Note.—The long-term addition of 9s. replaces the smaller discretionary additions which were payable under the National Assistance scheme, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission have power to increase the supplementary pension, over and above the long-term addition, where there are exceptional circumstances.

Explanatory Leaflet TR. 18

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Social Security whether copies of Explanatory Leaflet TR. 18 have been circulated to all post offices and local offices of her Department as stated on form T.R. 1.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many small post offices do not have these forms? In view of the fact that the people who have the greatest difficulty in making a reclaim for S.E.T. are elderly people, will he ensure that all post offices have these forms?

Mr. Loughlin: All area offices, National Insurance offices, and post offices, were asked to requisition supplies as they required them. I have made inquiries about the Folkestone area, and we cannot find any deficiencies there. If the hon. Gentleman will give us any information about this, I shall be only too delighted to do what I can to assist.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Minister of Social Security what action she proposes to take on the latest report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommending further relaxation of the earnings rule so far as it applies to people in receipt of retirement pensions.

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement about the recommendations made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in its report on the question of the earnings limit for retirement pensions.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she proposes to increase the earnings limit for retirement pensioners.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to introduce the recommendations concerning the earnings rule made by the


National Insurance Advisory Committee; and what would be the approximate annual cost.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she intends to revise the earnings rule in the light of the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Social Security what action she proposes to take on the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee for the alleviation of the earnings rule.

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Social Security what immediate action she intends to take to implement the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee regarding the earnings rule.

Miss Herbison: I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming the Committee's Report. The Government propose to give effect to its recommendations in full. But this will take time, since amending regulations will need to be considered by the Committee and then approved by Parliament. The estimated cost would be of the order of £350,000 to £500.000 in a full year.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will welcome the Government's acceptance of this Report? Can she give the House any idea how long it will be, after the procedure that she has outlined has been followed, before the earnings rule is amended?

Miss Herbison: First, we require Regulations. These draft Regulations must be sent to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. This Committee holds them for 28 days, for any representations to be made. Then the Regulations have to come before this House and another place for affirmative Resolution. We hope to get them through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Woof: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be welcomed by all pensioners doing part-time work? When does she propose to implement the recommendations?

Miss Herbison: I have explained that it will be some time before they can be

implemented, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay once we have gone through the arrangements that must be made.

Mr. Turton: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the decision, but cannot she take steps to cut down the amount of administrative time taken over this matter, bearing in mind that both the cost of living and the annual average level of earnings have risen considerably since October, 1963, which month was the basis on which the present earnings limit was made to operate? Surely she could cut down some of this administrative procedure?

Miss Herbison: There is no doubt that the Government's measures have helped to steady the cost of living. It is important—because this is a matter of great interest outside the House—that representations should be made and that the normal time should be allowed for them to be made. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to get them through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she is rapidly becoming my favourite Minister—my "pin-up girl"? Does she agree that the resultant increase in production could well outweigh the cost? Has she made any estimate of the increased production which is likely to result from people staying on at work?

Miss Herbison: It is very difficult to make any estimate of that, because one just does not know what effect raising the earnings limit will have. So many things must be taken into account.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend make appropriate representations to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that any discouragement, through S.E.T., to the employment of these retired people can be removed?

Miss Herbison: That is an entirely different matter. The Chancellor has already said that these matters are being examined.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in many parts of the country retirement pensioners can obtain only seasonal employment, and that the earnings rule, as operated at present, often


bears hardly on them? Is she aware that the people concerned will be disappointed that this committee, in its present Report, has not been able to recommend any solution to their problem? Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the question will be borne in mind in the general review of the social security system which is now under way?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Insurance Advisory Committee—a completely independent committee—gave a great deal of thought to the question of seasonable work. Its recommendation is contained in the Report.

Miss Pike: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House will do everything they can to facilitate the speed with which she brings this in, especially as we have been pressing for this increase since 1964?

Miss Herbison: I am delighted at the assurance which the hon. Lady has given. I welcome it very much. It is interesting that she mentioned 1964. Her own Government were in power then.

Mr. Ridsdale: We welcome this relief in respect of the earnings rule, but does the Minister realise that in seasonal areas it is important to do something about part-time workers? Is she aware that what operates most against them is S.E.T? Will she do something about this to help old-age pensioners?

Miss Herbison: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Miss Pike: May I remind the right hon. Lady that we raised this matter in 1963. We put it in our election manifesto in 1964, and we have been pressing—[Interruption.] May I also remind the Minister that we regard this as a very important continuing process, which should have been looked at much sooner?

Miss Herbison: Both political parties put many things into their election programmes. I am delighted and proud to be able to stand at this Box and make this statement. If I were in order in doing so I should like to deal with all the things in social security that we have honoured since 1964.

Prisoners (Families' Visits)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Security whether she will take steps to co-ordinate the policy of the Supplementary Benefits Commission regarding the visiting of prisoners by their families with that of the Home Office.

Miss Herbison: The new Supplementary Benefits Commission Will examine this question and it will, of course, do so in close consultation with the Home Office.

Mr. Marquand: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that at the moment prisoners' families are allowed to visit them monthly, whereas the Supplementary Benefits Commission pays their fares only quarterly. That is one aspect where co-ordination is needed.

Miss Herbison: I am very much aware of that fact. I know that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is also aware of it and will give urgent attention to it.

Supplementary Allowances

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Social Security how many sick and unemployed persons receiving supplementary allowances were affected by the wage standstill, at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Loughlin: On 3rd January, 1967 there were 2,503 temporarily sick persons and 21,800 unemployed persons whose supplementary allowances were restricted by reference to their usual weekly earnings.

Mr. Marquand: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures ram home the urgent need to do something about this problem? Will he commend to his right hon. Friends that one way of tackling it is by means of the incomes policy, and the acceptance of the principle of a minimum wage which is higher than the minimum conditions laid down as acceptable by the Supplementary Benefits Commission?

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the difficulties inherent in this question, but I am very sorry that the question of a minimum wage is not strictly for my Department.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: When considering the other problems of family poverty, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the wages stop is one of the major factors in such problems?

Mr. Loughlin: Certainly. When we are dealing specifically in terms of things like family allowances this obviously has a bearing on the lower-paid worker. This seems to me possibly the only way in which to solve this very difficult problem.

Unemployed Persons (Wages Standstill)

Dr. David Owen: asked the Minister of Social Security how many persons affected by the wages standstill had been out of work for a year or more at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Loughlin: In September, 1965 14,839 unemployed persons had their allowances restricted by reference to their usual weekly earnings; about 8,750 had been out of work for a year or more.

Dr. Owen: Will my hon. Friend agree that a high proportion of these are disabled people, that this is causing great concern and that he should be able to shield them from the effect of the wage stop?

Mr. Loughlin: I could not accept entirely, without notice, that there was a high proportion of these people who were disabled. I have not gone into it. It may well be so. However, as to the wage stop, this is a problem that can be solved only by more generous treatment on a family basis.

Variety and Circus Artistes

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the favourable legal outcome of Miss Anne Whittaker's case for receiving industrial injuries benefit which had been denied under a Ministerial inquiry, she will undertake for the future to establish a code of practice for the guidance of her Department for the proper protection of social security status for variety and circus artistes.

Miss Herbison: This case turned on the question of insurability under the Industrial Injuries Act. I have to act judicially in deciding such questions in individual cases, and my decisions are

subject to appeal on a question of law to the High Court. A difficult point of law was involved here and the Court reached a different conclusion from that at which I arrived after taking legal advice. I am satisfied that my Department is aware of the implications of the judgment in this case.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to hear in mind that because of the decision that matters of discretion shall not come within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner, it is all the more important to ensure that Departmental decisions involving any disputes should be right and that people should not have to go to a court of law to get a decision which is right for them when the matter ought to have been decided fairly by her Department?

Miss Herbison: Every attempt is made to decide the matter fairly. A decision taken by the Minister—this applied also to previous Ministers—is taken on the best legal advice available.

Social Survey Data Bank

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Social Security what assistance her Department will give to the Essex University project, which is supported by the Social Science Research Council, to build up a social survey data bank.

Miss Herbison: Essex University has not yet asked for my assistance in connection with its Social Survey data bank. If it does so, I shall of course do what I can to help it.

Miss Pike: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that this should play a very important part in pinpointing social problems as they are arising and, therefore, enabling us to have a more co-ordinated social policy?

Miss Herbison: Yes, that is possible, and already we make a great deal of material available to research workers in universities.

Industrial Diseases (Raynaud's Phenomenon)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will refer to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council the question of adding Raynaud's


phenomenon to the schedule of prescribed industrial diseases.

Miss Herbison: At my request, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recently completed an informal review of current developments in knowledge of Raynaud's phenomenon. As a result of their findings, on 13th January I referred to them for consideration and advice the question of prescribing vibration syndrome. This is a wider condition embracing Raynaud's phenomenon and other diseases of bones, joints, blood vessels or nerves caused by vibrating machines.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the case of my constituent, Mr. Charles Shaw, of Bathgate, about whom I went to see her and her predecessors, who suffers from Raynaud's disease, and would she accept that this is a matter which is of great concern to a very few individuals and that favourable treatment would be highly regarded by a very few unfortunate people?

Miss Herbison: It was because of that case, and, of course, a number of other cases, that in the first instance I asked the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to look at it, and we widened the field considerably because there are, I understand, many more who suffer from the vibration syndrome.

Casual Workers (Benefits)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to enable casual workers who do not come within normal pay-as-you-earn arrangements for tax purposes to pay contributions towards and to qualify for the payment of the earnings-related supplements to sickness and unemployment benefits.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. For practical reasons it is essential to relate both earning-related supplements and graduated contributions to Schedule E earnings taxed through P.A.Y.E.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of people in the printing industry, some meat porters and a number of people who are forced to accept self-employed status in a number of other industries, as part of the dodge that employers resort to in order

to avoid Selective Employment Tax, are denied supplementary benefits? Does he not think it is high time that further consideration was given to this breach in the excellent scheme that was brought in?

Mr. Loughlin: I accept that the whole problem arises out of the complications due to the multiplicity of employers in given instances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I wish you would not be so stupid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order. Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better make clear that he was not referring to the Chair, and should in any case withdraw his remark.

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Speaker, I willingly give you every assurance that I was not in any way intending to refer to you. In fact, I was really not even addressing the House. I was thinking aloud.
As I was saying, this arises out of the complication caused by a person having a multiplicity of employers. As my hon. Friend knows, the scheme was related to P.A.Y.E. He has sent me details of a particular case, and his constituent has submitted certain suggestions to us. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall give those suggestions full consideration and write to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Cytology Technicians (Qualifications)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will now clarify the position regarding the qualifications required by technical aides employed in cyto-screening, in view of the importance of this question in the prevention of cervical cancer.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I advised hospital authorities in October last that examination of cervical smears should normally be undertaken only by medical laboratory technicians or student or junior medical laboratory technicians specially trained in cytology. My Department will advise in individual cases where a hospital wishes to employ someone who has other appropriate qualifications and laboratory experience.

Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this lack of general guidance


to medical officers of health is preventing some 50 of them from expanding their facilities and causing others to soft-pedal their appeals to women to act as technical aides—because there are a number of women with B.Sc. degrees and other high qualifications who have been disqualified from acting as technical aides—and that they would welcome some general guidance on the point?

Mr. Robinson: My general guidance is of the limited kind that was reflected in the first half of my original Answer. I am advised that employment of persons without the necessary technical training would necessitate re-examination of all slides as a check on reliability and that this would hinder the development of the full routine screening service.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the progress of cytology is being held up not so much by lack of technically trained personnel as by the unwillingness of certain women to come forward and be screened? What steps is the Ministry taking to make sure that the widest possible publicity is given to the services now available?

Mr. Robinson: I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion as a general statement. I think that it is true in one or two areas, but I believe that in most cases it is still lack of sufficient facilities for examining the smears. I have asked local authorities to co-ordinate publicity of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has asked for with the availability of these services.

Artificial Kidney Machine (Oxford)

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Health when he expects an artificial kidney machine to be available for patients in the Oxford area.

Mr. K. Robinson: A pilot unit of two beds should be available by mid-March and a 10-bed centre by the following March.

Mr. Luard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to many people in Oxford who have been hoping for the establishment of such a centre as this for some time? Can he give an assurance that if one of the difficulties in building centres

of this kind is that of training the necessary assistants rather than finding the money, there will be a crash programme to get the necessary training done as quickly as possible all over the country?

Mr. Robinson: On these general issues, I hope that my hon. Friend will await a statement that I propose to make later this week.

Cigarette Advertising

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Health what action he intends to take following the decision by Carreras to resume cigarette advertising in the media it used before current restrictions were introduced.

Mr. K. Robinson: The whole question of cigarette advertising is being actively considered but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a time when the Government are giving serious consideration to the economic and social hazards of drug addiction is also a time to move forward to stronger regulations governing tobacco advertising?

Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend doubtless knows, I sent a circular letter to a number of bodies about smoking in public places. The question of advertising is under consideration, but I remind my hon. Friend that the advertising of cigarettes on television continues to be barred.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the Minister say why this company should not be allowed to advertise? How many more of our liberties are to be infringed?

Mr. Robinson: I have certain duties to the House to promote the public health, and it is in that connection that I adopt the attitude that I do adopt.

General Practitioners (Seniority Pay)

Mr. Frank Taylor: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the facts that under his regulations after October, 1966, a medical practitioner, irrespective of his years of service as principal, loses all rights to seniority pay if he ceases to be a principal for upwards of three months and that this can operate unfairly


against a medical practitioner serving a period of probation when changing his practice, whether he will take steps to correct this anomaly.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have agreed with representatives of the profession that we shall discuss this and other problems arising from the implementation of the new scheme of remuneration worked out in consultation with them, after some further experience of its operation.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister treat this as a matter of urgency? It operates most unfairly against practitioners of many years standing who may wish to take a holiday before resuming a new practice and who run the risk of losing all their rights of seniority by a three months' absence after 20 to 30 years in one practice.

Mr. Robinson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the case. The present agreement already allows for an absence from practice, not limited to three months, for holidays, sick leave, study courses, hospital attachment, or any period of National Service.

Poultry Processing Plants

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health if the meat inspection of poultry at processing plants in the United Kingdom is being carried out in accordance with the statutory standards required for the post mortem inspection of cattle, sheep and pigs at licensed slaughterhouses.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The statutory standards relating to the post mortem inspection of cattle, sheep and pigs at licensed slaughterhouses do not apply to poultry. Inspection of poultry is undertaken by local authorities under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1960.

Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling that in many areas the standard of these poultry processing plants falls far below what is desirable, to such an extent that the American Forces are refusing to buy poultry from these plants? Is he, therefore, prepared to look at the matter again and to see whether the present Regulations are sufficiently strong?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. I will do that. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware

that 170 million broiler chickens alone are reared in this country each year. Individual inspection is, therefore, quite impossible. Local authorities oversee the work of producers, and they operate under standards of hygiene recommended in the code of hygiene practice for poultry packing and dressing published by Ministers in 1961.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Drug Stocks

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Health whether he will institute a review of drug stocks in hospital pharmacy departments to determine the amount of dead stock being carried and assess the amount of over-purchasing involved.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. It is the responsibility of hospital authorities to conduct regular reviews of stocks.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there are, with the changes in doctors and consultants in hospitals, many of whom have their favourite drugs, hospitals which are carrying large stores of drugs not being used, and that this is expensive?

Mr. Snow: In 1961 instructions were given to the authorities to concentrate surplus stocks centrally with a view to more economic distribution where they would be needed. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific case in mind perhaps he would write to me about it.

Private Beds (Charges)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Health whether any private bed charges were decreased during the two years ended 31st December, 1966.

Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir. Complete information is not readily available but the number of decreases is likely to have been small.

Mr. Woodnutt: In that case can the Minister explain to me why there are so many increases? If some hospitals are able to decrease these charges, how can he reconcile the increases with the prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Robinson: I have answered the latter point, and the Question was about


decreases. The fact is that certain factors had to be taken into account, in accordance with the Regulations, in calculating the cost of pay beds. I am statutorily obliged to ask for these charges to be revised annually in October, and that has resulted, inevitably, in increases in most cases, but decreases in a few.

Weston-super-Mare General Hospital (Operating Theatres)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Health for how long were the operating theatres in Weston-super-Mare General Hospital closed in 1966, and for what reason

Mr. Snow: The operating theatres were closed from 27th November to 19th December, 1966, so that equipment could be installed to regulate the humidity. The work was done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Webster: Is not this exceedingly alarming and is it not a fact that what might have been a dangerous incident shows how great is the need for a new hospital in Weston-super-Mare?

Mr. Snow: There is a Question on that subject later.

Weston-super-Mare (New General Hospital)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to authorise the building of a new general hospital in Weston-super-Mare.

Mr. Snow: The building of a new general hospital in Weston-super-Mare has already been approved and the regional hospital board hopes to start work on the first phase in 1969–70.

Junior Hospital Doctors' Association

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Health what action he will now take to accord official recognition to the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association and to include it in official negotiations and consultations about the Hospital Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that junior hospital doctors carry a heavy burden within the Health Service, that at the moment they do not feel adequately represented, and that both for their morale and for the general working

of the Health Service it might be wise to find some way of giving them a greater say in these negotiations?

Mr. Robinson: It is for the profession to propose who should represent them in negotiations. I can assure my hon. Friend that in the negotiations that are currently taking place, covering all National Health Service doctors and dentists, the negotiating team of nine includes four junior doctors.

Dr. David Owen: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the junior hospital doctors feel that in the recent negotiations their case has not been put very effectively, particularly in respect of food charges, which have been raised for those who live in hospital and who will now have to pay a specific charge for each meal which they eat, as well as laundry charges, which are likely to work out at a greater cost than that which they previously had to pay as a lump sum?

Mr. Robinson: This is a particular matter. I would not accept the conclusion which my hon. Friend drew. He knows that the new arrangements for board and lodging arise directly out of the seventh report of the independent Review Body.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best encouragement that he can give to junior hospital doctors is to undertake a radical review of the structure of staffing in hospitals? Will he say quite emphatically that the current negotiations will result in some proposals to that end?

Mr. Robinson: I have already assured the hon. Member and the House that a review of the staffing structure forms an important part of the discussions which are currently under way.

Young Chronic Sick

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made towards establishing more young chronic sick units near patients' homes and abolishing the present practice of confining the young chronic sick in geriatric wards with the senile; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply


to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on 30th January.

Mr. Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is particularly widespread concern about the facilities available for the young chronic sick? Can he offer any hope of progress in the near future?

Mr. Snow: Yes. My right hon. Friend has instructed that on the basis of the earlier pilot scheme there shall be a survey to establish the problem affectting the numbers of young chronic sick in hospitals. The problem is made the more difficult by the lack of precise information at present. It is not correct to say that all young chronic sick are in geriatric wards. Half were in geriatric or chronic sick wards earlier last year, two-thirds of whom were between the ages of 51 and 60, and, of the balance, 650 were in young chronic sick units or contractual beds. The remainder were in general wards.

Mr. Braine: This is the second time this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman has referred to a lack of adequate information on this subject. Is he not aware that some years ago the Oxford Regional Hospital Board carried out a survey which revealed quite clearly that one out of every three of these chronic sick patients could be released from hospital to home if there were adequate home nursing or a constant attendance allowance?

Mr. Snow: It is true that that survey was carried out. We do not think it complete. That is why we are trying to carry out a better one.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Health what consideration has been given to enrolling and training special medical home helps to reduce the numbers of the young chronic sick who are confined in geriatric wards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: It appears to me that my hon. Friend's objects can best be met by the development of home nursing services, particularly through the increased use of ancillary staff for less skilled work; and local authorities have been asked to review their staffing with this in mind.

Mr. Morris: May I inform my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —Is

my hon. Friend aware that it is considered by many people to be a crime that any young chronic sick should be in a geriatric ward? Will he state what is to be done in the near future to encourage local authorities to take much more action than they are taking at present?

Mr. Snow: This was done in March, 1966. Local authorities were asked to review their internal arrangements for co-ordinating the services for handicapped children and school leavers and to take into account the chronic sick aspect of it. We are carrying out this survey. We are fully conscious of the serious nature of the problem.

Mr. Astor: Does not the Minister agree that the provision of a constant attendance allowance would enable many of these disabled people to live at home, not only to their own benefit but also to provide an economic saving over the present arrangement?

Mr. Snow: That might well be argued. It is, however, a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security.

Pathologists (Consultant Posts)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that there are sufficient qualified pathologists coming forward to fill the consultant needs of the hospital service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: Generally there are sufficient applicants for advertised consultant posts but there are variations as between regions and in different branches of pathology.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some regions the problem is so acute that the pathological service is likely to break down unless something is done about it? What steps is he taking to ensure that new consultants come into those fields in the hospital service in which they are most needed?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend knows that guidance on career prospects was published by my Department in the British Medical Journal and the Lancet at the end of last year. I hope that this will encourage more entrants into this speciality. But, as far as I am aware, there has been only one occasion


in the last two years on which a post has remained unfilled despite advertisement.

Doctors (Dispensing)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on his discussions concerning the dispensing of prescriptions by general practitioners in the National Health Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: Discussions on the future arrangements for dispensing by doctors are taking place with representatives of the medical and pharmaceutical professions. The Government's proposals were set out in the Third Report of the Joint Discussions on the Family Doctor Service published last May.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that these discussions have taken a terribly long time? Is he aware that the delay in making an announcement of the result of the discussions is arousing suspicion among rural pharmacists, doctors who at present dispense, and particularly among patients who live in remote areas?

Mr. Robinson: If those suspicions exist, they are exceedingly ill founded, because the representatives of the general practitioners have only recently informed me of their views both on the circumstances in which a doctor should dispense and on the question of remuneration.

Disabled Drivers (Vehicles)

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the light of his recent review, he will now arrange for the provision to disabled drivers of suitably adapted small cars in place of single-seater vehicles.

Mr. Snow: I must ask my hon. Friend to await my right hon. Friend's statement about his review of our vehicle provisions which he will make in the very near future.

Mr. Luard: Could the Minister give the assurance that in reaching a decision on this review he will very carefully bear in mind the strong evidence of the difficulties which many people are suffering at present from the present inadequate vehicle, particularly the serious traffic dangers arising in some circumstances?

Mr. Snow: Yes. My right hon. Friend has received representations from many sources, and has taken these into account—representations both from Members of the House and from people outside. The point about danger is being very actively considered.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the present Regulations a disabled mother with a disabled child under the age of 16 is denied a car and is, therefore, unable to take her disabled child out, and that the Regulations thereby impose a further handicap upon someone already in a very sad situation?

Mr. Snow: Yes. I read about this case. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend consider this matter with a greater sense of urgency? Does he realise that Members have been pestering about cases of this kind for years and years? Previous Governments have done nothing and the present Government are not doing too much. Will he make certain that these poor individuals are not allowed to go out on their own at risk of their cars breaking down anywhere?

Mr. Snow: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this has been a subject of agitation in this House for many years. I have myself participated in it. All I can say is that it would have been happier if we had been left with better statistical information by our predecessors.

Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will stop dragging his feet and will take humane and just action, in particular, in permitting contributions towards the cost of converting to hand control cars for disabled ex-Service men?

Mr. Snow: Yes. I never drag my feet.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Library (Non-Smokers)

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose to the Services Committee that the accommodation for nonsmokers in the Library of the House of Commons should be increased.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have been asked to reply.
This matter was considered by the Library Sub-Committee last Wednesday, when it was decided that any change in the new arrangements, which have after all only been in existence for three weeks, would not be appropriate at this stage.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health states that 46 per cent. of the adult population, which, presumably, includes Members of Parliament, are nonsmokers, but that only 34·6 of the armchairs and 21·8 of the desks are available to non-smokers? Is there nowhere where chatty non-smokers can chat?

Mr. Silverman: I am not without a certain sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's views, but I am sure he will appreciate that the first reaction of the House would necessarily be—would it not? —to appreciate Mr. Speaker's generosity in enabling the Library to expand at all. What the Sub-Committee had to consider was how to make the best use of the available space which Mr. Speaker's generosity made available to us. It was considered—and I think that most hon. Members would agree—that the best use we could make of "C" Room would be to make it available for research facilities for those hon. Members in all parts of the House who had been pressing for this for a long time.

Mr. Wilkins: I wonder if my hon. Friend would give us a clearer definition of the word "chatty"? When I was in the Royal Navy, "chatty" used to mean "lousy". I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his right hon. Friends in those terms.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to be responsible for the choice of language of other Members. I have enough to do to be responsible for my own.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister without Portfolio when he is likely to publish a report on child poverty and its related problems.

Dr. David Owen: asked the Minister without Portfolio what studies he is making of the problem of poverty in Great Britain; and whether he will produce a preliminary report on the family circumstances reviewed.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I am greatly concerned at the whole problem of child poverty and, in conjunction with my colleagues, have been giving much anxious thought to it. We are determined to find the best way of helping the families concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security told the House on 23rd January that she hopes to publish the report of an inquiry into family circumstances next May or June.

Mr. Booth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that welcome news, may I ask if he will include within the scope of the inquiries which are being made with a view to publishing this report the special needs of the children of the disabled mothers?

Mr. Gordon Walker: The inquiry has already been made and I do not think we can launch another one at this moment. The problem is that it takes time to analyse and sift the results of an inquiry of this kind. This has not yet been completed. We are, therefore, not quite sure exactly which problems it will throw light on, but I hope it will on this particular problem.

Dr. David Owen: While welcoming my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box to answer on this subject, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that June is very late, and that he should publish this report at a time when those of us who are concerned about it can influence the decisions which are about to be made?

Mr. Gordon Walker: The report will be published as soon as possible. The only limiting factor is the need to analyse it. Directly that has been done—and that is in process—the report will be published.

Miss Pike: Does the Minister's Answer to this Question put to death once and for all the rumours that he is not, in fact, in charge of the co-ordination of the social services? May we take it that he


is very much in charge of the co-ordination of the social services? Has he realised that this problem of child poverty first came to the forefront in the winter of 1963, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House and people outside the House have been studying this problem very urgently? It is really time now that we had some action rather than mere thought upon the problem.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I think there is a Question down to the Prime Minister on that matter, which he will be answering. As for the second part, I quite agree that this is a problem which has only recently been understood, and I am sure we were right to institute a very careful survey into its exact extent and nature. This was not done to delay things at all. It was done to make the best possible proposals in the light of the facts.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government bear in mind the alarm which has been expressed in many quarters interested in this matter of poverty because of the rumour that the Government contemplate increasing the charges for school meals? Is he aware that the present charges have had the effect that an alarming number of children are not taking school meals now?

Mr. Gordon Walker: This, of course, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

GUARDSMAN GABRIEL

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Guardsman Gabriel.
I fully understand and, indeed, share, the strong Parliamentary and public feeling concerning Guardsman Gabriel's case, and I think that the House and country will wish me to make a statement clarifying the facts of the position as they now are.
Appeals from decisions of the High Court in Aden are heard by the East African Court of Appeal, consisting of three distinguished British judges. The Chairman of the Court, Sir Charles New-

bold, has said that an important point of law had been raised in Guardsman Gabriel's case and that he would, therefore, be announcing later the reasons for the Court's decision to reject the appeal. Sir Charles Newbold will make this announcement on 13th February. It will then be for Gabriel's lawyers to consider with him the possibility of petitioning the Privy Council, in the light of the reasons announced by Sir Charles Newbold.
I should like to draw the attention of Members to the importance, in the interests of Gabriel himself, of the possibility of Privy Council proceedings being thoroughly studied, since there is no other way in which he could alter the present fact that he is a condemned murderer. The question of clemency arises only when there is no further possibility of Gabriel being cleared of the charge of murder.
I can assure the House that if and when the question of clemency does arise, it will be considered with the utmost urgency by the High Commissioner in Aden, as the representative of the Queen, and, in the last resort, by myself, to whom it would then fall in that event to advise the Queen on exercising clemency herself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before calling hon. Members to ask supplementary questions, I wish to remind the House that the rule which forbids the discussion of a capital sentence while it is pending exists to avoid subjecting the persons responsible for advising clemency to the pressure of Parliamentary discussion. To the extent that those responsible offer the matter for Parliamentary discussion, the rule can and must be relaxed. I am, therefore, prepared to admit supplementary questions within the limits of the statement and related matters. However, the Foreign Secretary did not, in my view, touch on the circumstances which would be considered in advising on the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, and questions dealing directly with that issue would not be in order.

Lord Balniel: We had no warning of the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that it is possible to put questions to elucidate facts arising out of the statement which the Foreign Secretary has made.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement on a matter of the utmost gravity, because it concerns a man whose life is at stake. I have two questions to put to him. The first is constitutional. Although the statement has been made by the Foreign Secretary, are we to understand that the courts in Aden are in no way regarded as courts of a foreign country but they are still regarded as courts of a Crown Colony? Further, who will ultimately advise the Queen on the Royal Prerogative? I understand from his statement that it is the Foreign Secretary.
Second, to a layman it is rather surprising that a Service man who is posted in this country or, for instance, to Germany, were he to have committed this crime, would not have been subject to the death penalty, whereas, purely because he has been in Aden, he is subject to the death penalty. Are not the Government responsible for this man's life wherever he may be posted? The House will look to the Government to ensure that the Service man does not suffer because British and Aden law are different.

Mr. Brown: Jurisdiction over the offence with which Guardsman Gabriel was charged was not transferred to the courts-martial procedure by the Order entitled the United Kingdom Forces (Jurisdiction by Colonial Courts) Order passed by the House in 1965, which made a distinction between offences committed on duty and those committed off duty. Offences committed on duty are triable by courts-martial but those committed off duty are not. That, therefore, is the situation.
The noble Lord asked whether the courts are Crown Colony courts. Yes, they are.
He asked also whether, in the end, because of the special situation, it is my responsibility to advise the Queen. Yes, Sir, it is.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend will realise that there are a number of questions which it would be inappropriate to deal with in this fashion at this time, but may I put to him two questions which, I hope, are in order.
Is he aware that it has always been the invariable practice of the Home

Secretary to make up his mind very quickly whether to advise Her Majesty to exercise her Prerogative of mercy in cases where the final appeal might be a long way off or, possibly, indefinitely delayed. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, therefore, that it might be desirable in everyone's interests that he should follow that practice if an appeal to the Privy Council takes a very long time, as almost inevitably it will?
Second, why, in the arrangements which were made, were no safeguards introduced to ensure that a young British soldier serving with his unit on foreign service is not exposed in the courts of the country in which he is serving to penalties to which he would not be exposed for a corresponding offence committed in this country? Is it not a fact that all the Visiting Forces Agreements which have ever been made in this country have taken steps to ensure that soldiers are protected in this way? My right hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that we did not abolish the death penalty in this country in order to make British soldiers subject to it abroad.

Mr. Brown: Regarding what my hon. Friend says is the practice of the Home Secretary, I cannot believe—this is the very first time I have ever been in this situation—that it could possibly be in the interest of Guardsman Gabriel that I should make up my mind, much less publicly declare my conclusion, on a question of commutation of the death sentence when he still has an opportunity to clear himself of the charge. I should have thought that, in the interests of the man and his family, and, indeed, of the British Forces, we ought to allow the processes of law to take effect before I consider the quite hypothetical question of whether the death penalty should be commuted.
The question of what the courts of Aden can award by way of penalty and whether that should be brought into line with the present position in this country is a matter which I am well willing to consider, but I remind my hon. Friend that, in considering it, consideration must go further than the position of a young British guardsman; it would, of course, have to take into account the situation in Aden at this moment.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will be grateful to


him for giving public confirmation of the present legal position in this case? May I ask him three short questions? First, although Guardsman Gabriel was represented by a distinguished member of the Kenya and English Bar, who is a silk, Mr. Georgiadis, should he feel that he wants his legal team strengthened by those with experience of Privy Council work, may we take it that finance would not be a bar? Secondly, as appeals to the Privy Council are sometimes delayed by as much as six months, can the right hon. Gentleman, without improperly interfering with the machinery of the Privy Council, do all he possibly can to expedite the hearing of such an appeal? Finally, although we hope that he will not have to consider giving advice in regard to the Prerogative, would he bear in mind the case of Alan William Norton in Jersey, in which the Home Secretary was faced with a precisely similar case and took a particular course of action?

Mr. Brown: On the first part of the question, Guardsman Gabriel has been having aid from the Army Legal Aid Fund. It is a hypothetical question, and I pass no judgment on the competence of the legal team looking after him, but if the position put by the hon. Member arose I am sure that there would be no difficulty. On the question of expediting the appeal, Sir Charles Newbold has not yet delivered his reasons for the judgment on what he calls an important point of law. Therefore, I do not want to put Guardsman Gabriel's lawyers under undue pressure so that they do not have adequate time to consider how they would deal with the matter. But the hon. Member may like to know that I have this morning been in touch with everybody concerned to ensure that the case does not hang around any longer than is necessary for the adequate defence of the guardsman, because one wants to see total justice done, with special regard to the interests of that unfortunate young man. The hon. Member also asked me about a previous case. Yes, I have that in mind.

Mr. Gurden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of all my efforts, the guardsman's family, who are my constituents, have suffered great anxiety? Is he aware that some of this could have been avoided if the Minister of Defence

had earlier made a statement on the lines of that made today? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no possibility under any circumstances that this man could be executed before all the processes have been gone through?

Mr. Perry: He would hang if you had your way.

Mr. Brown: There is no possibility.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Brown: This is too serious a matter for us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) said something he should not have.

Mr. Perry: I beg to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Brown: This is a very important case, in which we must balance two things, and I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) to take that into account. We have not only to be fair beyond doubt to the young man concerned, but we must also be seen in the eyes of the world to be defending justice. We must also be careful not to seem to be leaning over for the one against the other, particularly in the circumstances in Aden at this time. I do not accept that a statement of this kind could have been made before. It simply could not have been made before Sir Charles Newbold had given notice of his judgment, and as the final responsibility for advising Her Majesty might come to me, I thought that I was the right man to make the announcement to the House.

Sir J. Hobson: Is not what the Foreign Secretary has said a departure from previous practice? Is it not the position that a conviction in a Crown Colony has normally always attracted the consideration of the Governor-General alone on the question of the exercise of clemency and mercy? Was not that the case in 1947 in the Gold Coast, when I think that the then Lord Chancellor advised on the division of responsibility between the Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom and the Crown as represented by the Governor-General in the Colony? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether this may not be a


new departure and, if so, whether it is right?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. When I came to office and discovered that Aden was on my plate and that the man on the spot was called a High Commissioner, I asked how this should come about. The answer is that Aden is a rather special case. There is not a Governor-General but there is a High Commissioner. Yet the Foreign Office is the responsible Department, and has been before, for Aden, and that is how it comes to me. We are making no departure from practice.

Mr. Lipton: In the twilight period through which Aden is now passing, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the legal or other status of British troops serving in Aden is no worse than that of British troops serving in other overseas theatres?

Mr. Brown: I think that the military authorities here are, generally speaking, in the circumstances of Aden, satisfied with the present position as defined under the Order of 1965 to which I referred. If there is any wish that I should discuss with my right hon. Friend whether this is still so, I would do so.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Foreign Secretary say how he would adversely affect the guardsman concerned by advising the commuting of the death sentence; surely the guardsman can always appeal to the Privy Council against his conviction and sentence, whether it be death or a life sentence?

Mr. Brown: By announcing any decision to commute, which could be against as well as for, I would be pre-empting the decisions of the court as to whether he had committed an offence.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would not my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ascertain what the practice of the Home Office has invariably been in comparable cases where the appeal is not to the Privy Council but to the House of Lords? Has not the practice of the Home Office always been—and acceptably so to all parties—to announce, where leave to appeal to the House of Lords has been given, that in any event, whatever the result of the appeal, the sentence will not be put into execution? If this has been the invariable

practice of the Home Office in appeals to the House of Lords, why should it not be my right hon. Friend's practice in a contemplated appeal, which is not yet an appeal, to the Privy Council? Does he not appreciate that this can be done without prejudicing the right of appeal or the result of the appeal in any way?

Mr. Brown: I hesitate to cross swords with my hon. Friend on the facts of this matter. He and I have been together in many a Division on the merits of this case. My information is that the Home Office does not announce a decision on the exercise of clemency while an appeal still lies. I am sorry that I must tell my hon. Friend that I understand that this is not so. But speaking for myself—my hon. Friend knows enough about me not to get too involved in this—I think that it would be very wrong while the guardsman still has an opportunity of clearing himself of the charge for me to seem, as it were, to comment on that to his disadvantage by announcing what I would propose to do about the sentence were it to be upheld.

Mr. Peyton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that? I do not understand how it could prejudice this man or deprive him of an opportunity of clearing his name if it were simply said at this stage that whatever the outcome he would not suffer the death penalty. Is he aware that my own impression—I put it forward without wishing to stress it too strongly—very much accords with that of his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) as to Home Office practice?

Mr. Brown: I will in that case look into what has been the Home Office practice, but I have been advised that it has not been as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). But I am bound to say that I think that it would be wrong for me to take the action suggested. I think that this is a matter to be judged when the legal processes have run their due course.
Frankly, as advised at this moment, although I will naturally reconsider, I have no intention of departing from the view that Guardsman Gabriel has courses of appeal still open to him and that, until they have been exhausted, I am not called


upon, nor is the High Commissioner, to consider what advice we should tender Her Majesty.

Dame Joan Vickers: What is the position of the High Commissioner with regard to this? If he makes a decision, will he make it publicly or to the right hon. Gentleman'? If the right hon. Gentleman were to reverse a public decision by the High Commissioner one way or the other, this might make the High Commissioner's position in Aden very difficult vis-à-vis the population.

Mr. Brown: I recognise that this is a difficult position, and it worries me. However, I inherited it, and there it is. The High Commissioner may, in the name of the Queen, exercise clemency, in which case there is an end to the matter. He may, on the other hand, decide not to exercise clemency in the name of the Queen, in which case it is not an end to the matter because Her Majesty has a residual right and on that residual right I may advise her.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, whatever the legal niceties, there is a strong feeling about this matter on the part of ex-Service organisations in Birmingham, which is Guardsman Gabriel's home town? These organisations firmly believe that a British soldier serving overseas should not suffer a penalty to which he could not be subject in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that view in mind in due course?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I will. But I ask the hon. Gentleman also to recognise that many people elsewhere in the world look to us to be obviously and very evidently on the side of justice and that mercy may come afterwards. Justice must be seen to be done as well as done, and simply to say that the British Legion or other ex-Service organisation do not like British soldiers facing up to this situation may give the impression that we place justice second. I beg the House to realise this and also to realise that the quality of mercy will most certainly rest with me thereafter.
I have had a chance to check my view of the position raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The position

is that where the Crown has appealed against judgment the Home Office has announced that it would exercise its right to advise Her Majesty about clemency, but that where the subject has appealed this has never been done.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce a rearrangement of business for Tuesday and for Wednesday afternoon.
On TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Completion of the Motion on the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order.
Motions on the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order, the Hartlepool Order and the Sea Fisheries Order.
On WEDNESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—A debate on the Press arising on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Third Reading of which, under Standing Order No. 89 will be formal.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constant rearrangement of business to which we are being subjected is extremely inconvenient for those right hon. and hon. Members who try to arrange their own affairs according to the debates in which they wish to take part? On this occasion, having to put the Consolidated Fund Bill in Tuesday's business is due to the crass incompetence of himself and the Government Chief Whip, together with the appalling apathy of Government supporters who could not even be bothered to turn up in order to support the most important Bill of the Session before the Budget. As a result, everybody suffers.
Why, in these circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman persist in this attitude of overloading Tuesday? We now have a fresh Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, on which I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to raise further subjects on the Supplementary Estimates—followed by the Order to dissolve the Ministry of


Aviation, to the debate on which the Government have still not replied and are incapable, apparently, of bringing to a conclusion, and then the Order to dissolve the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. How can we possibly expect to take the whole of this business on Tuesday? The right hon. Gentleman has got us into one mess and is now getting us into another.

Mr. Crossman: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is being slightly ungrateful, since he specifically advised you, Mr. Speaker, that we should not take the Consolidated Fund Bill last Thursday, but should postpone it until this week. Now, when I announce the new date he blames us for the announcement. That may all be good fun, but surely it is not serious.
As to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I will see how we go. The Order dissolving the Ministry of Aviation has, I am gratified to see, aroused a great amount of interest and has shown how suitable it seems to have been for morning sittings. However, we will exclude it for tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever view one may have taken in advance about the merits of morning sittings, it would be wrong to make up one's mind on the practical results on the basis of two? Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to amend the Sessional Order so as to clarify the rules on the application of the Closure, particularly on those days when exempted business is to be taken in the afternoon?

Mr. Crossman: That is a rather different question from business. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he says about judging the merits of morning sittings. I think that we are going very well in our morning sittings. The only thing that we underestimated was the interest of the Opposition in them.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if morning sittings are to work it is essential to get the co-operation of the Opposition and that there should not be the misuse of them such as we have had—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the question of morning sittings on

a business statement. This is not a general business question time. It concerns only the changed business which the Leader of the House has announced.

Mr. Rankin: I merely suggest that if the morning sittings are to work they must not be abused by the Opposition.

Mr. Crossman: I have no complaint about morning sittings. I am delighted by the excellent attendance of the Opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Ministry of Aviation is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, suitable for morning sittings, why must the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources Order be taken in the middle of the night?

Mr. Crossman: Both these Orders are suitable for both morning and afternoon. While morning sittings are for matters less essential, they can be important. We originally proposed these Orders for the morning, but everyone has shown such keen interest that we have decided to finish one tomorrow and start the next. Things will get on equitably if they go on as they did today.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since one of the purposes of the Consolidated Fund Bill is that back benchers shall sustain the debate, has my right hon. Friend any indication as to whether the Opposition propose to "pot the white" again by calling again for a Count, which caused all the trouble? Can my right hon. Friend also give an indication of when we may advise the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair wants to hear these exchanges.

Mr. Foot: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of when we may have an opportunity of advising the Leader of the Opposition on how he may assist in sustaining the rights of his own back benchers?

Mr. Crossman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather a business question for Thursday.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware how much we would wish to congratulate him on his new-found


tact in wishing to bury the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources at dead of night?

Mr. Grossman: I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his newfound courtesy toward me.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the Consolidated Fund Bill which we shall discuss tomorrow a new Bill, or is it the old Bill revived?

Mr. Crossman: I have had some experience now in advising the House. It would be wrong for me to advise the House on this. This is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is it not clear from the experience of last week that it is impossible to rely upon voluntary co-operation to carry through the business of this House, especially through the night, and is it not necessary now for this House to establish definite fixed rules to stop this nonsense through the night?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the two announced changes in business.

Mr. Crossman: This is a lengthy question; we might have another debate on procedure soon.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. As the Leader of the House was not able to give us any guidance as to whether this was a new Bill or a continuation of the old Bill, can I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House guidance on this point?

Mr. Speaker: The House can always look to Mr. Speaker to give guidance, but not at this moment.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether he is making any financial arrangements for those hon. Members opposite who come in the morning and obviously lose money by doing so?

Mr. John Hall: Further to my point of order. As I gather you cannot give guidance on this point now, at what point will you be able to give guidance?

Mr. Speaker: When we come to the matter on Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Leader of the House urge the Minister of Agriculture to make a full statement on the very serious problems concerning foot-and-mouth disease in the north of England, and will he make sure that the Minister does not slip out of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has made proposals for certain changes in the business for tomorrow and Wednesday. This is not the Thursday business question time.

Sir J. Eden: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), can we have some information from you as to when you are likely to publish the list of subjects which hon. Members will have given you notice that they wish to raise under the Consolidated Fund Bill? In view of the change of business for tomorrow, there is very little time for hon. Members to know in advance what subjects are likely to be raised. May we know from you whether we are likely to have the subjects to be debated before the rising of the House today?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have the information before the rising of the House. I must consider whether I shall publish a list.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I ask the Leader of the House if he would amend two things which he said to the House in the course of the exchanges last week on the Consolidated Fund Bill? The Leader of the House suggested that we might give notice of a Count of the House in future. Would he tell us in what circumstances is it imposed upon us that we—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate on the business question for tomorrow and Wednesday the multifarious circumstances under which Counts are asked for.

Mr. Heath: This is an important point, if it is a point of order, because the Leader of the House is giving the impression that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to carry the Government's business on the Consolidated Fund Bill. This has never been the tradition in the history of Parliament. It is entirely the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to carry the business.


They have failed in their responsibility and they must take the blame. It is not a question of potting the white on every possible occasion—we shall pot the red, as we did last week.

Mr. Crossman: I made a statement of business for tomorrow and the next day. I would be delighted to debate the merits of what really went on last week, but this is not the time to do it. I will do it whenever we are given the time to do so.

Mr. Michael Foot: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was on a point of order, but I understood that he was. If it is the case, as he states, that on the Consolidated Fund Bill it is solely the responsibility of the Government to sustain the House and that this is the convention of the House, then surely there would be no question of providing facilities for back benchers to know which matters should be discussed? Is it not a fact that it has been the accepted convention of this House over many years that on the Consolidated Fund Bill there shall be arrangements made for back benchers, notifying them when certain matters are to be raised? Surely that would not be the case if this was not a special arrangement for providing time for back benchers? All that some of us have argued is that it was the Opposition's responsibility for curtailing the opportunities for back benchers, and the Leader of the Opposition apparently connives at this.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong, as he knows full well. When he was on this side of the House he argued exactly to the contrary. The fact is that the opportunities for back benchers on the Consolidated Fund Bill are for back benchers on both sides of the House, and it is the Government's responsibility to keep the Bill. It was a responsibility which we always accepted without apology, unlike the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. Is the House aware that on the night in question this House helped—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen. I am not prepared on this business question to have an inquest upon the two Counts which took place.

Sir A. V. Harvey: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that the best way to ensure continuity of business and for the Government to get their business would be for him to consider issuing a three-line Whip to his own side?

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. I am sorry to press this point of order, which is further to the one that I raised earlier, but the difficulty facing the House because of the impossibility of finding out whether the Bill is a new one or a continuation of the old one is very real. As I understand the situation, if this is a new Bill those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have already spoken can speak again. If it is a continuation of the old one they cannot do so. It would be a great advantage and convenience to all hon. Members if we could be told at this stage whether this Bill is new or old.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I knew the point that he was raising with me when he raised it originally. I understood all its implications—I am not prepared to rule on it at the moment.

Mr. Clark-Hutchison: With regard to Wednesday's business, the Scottish Housing Bill seems to be knocked out. As the Government's record on house building in Scotland is so bad, when are we to have this Bill, which is very urgent?

Mr. Crossman: It will come. I hope to make a statement on Thursday.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that you were not prepared to state whether you would give a list of subjects for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. If that be so, is that not altering your former precedent? Could you say why in those circumstances you would not be prepared to make a list available?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must remember what I said. I said that I am not at this stage prepared to say whether I am prepared to give a list.


The making of a list is a courtesy that the Chair sometimes affords to Members.

Mr. Heath: We realise that you have been placed in a very difficult position by the action of the Government, but the position is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have to decide whether they wish to be here tomorrow afternoon to discuss certain specific subjects. In the past you have been kind enough to tell the House the subjects which you intended to choose. Would it not be possible, in the course of the day, to tell the House which subjects are chosen? Secondly, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will wish to know, if they spoke on the last occasion of the Consolidated Fund Bill, whether they can speak again on this occasion?
Can we ask when you would be prepared to give your Ruling as to whether this is a new Bill, and whether those who have already spoken will be able to speak again? If I may respectfully present it to you, it is in no way your responsibility, and we realise the position in which you find yourself because of the Government's incompetence, but from the point of view of the convenience of the House we would like to know when you would be prepared to give a Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the point so courteously. I have already suggested that I am prepared to rule on

this when we come to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order. There is an announcement on the tape that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making an important announcement in the House this afternoon about the financing of private housebuilding. May we ask the Leader of the House where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is and when the important announcement will be made?

Mr. Crossman: I think the answer is that it will be a Written Reply.

Sir J. Eden: Further to that point of order. Is it not quite wrong that a Minister of the Crown should seek to make an important statement in public by means of a Written Answer? Apart from anything else, we have morning sittings for just this purpose.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That point must be raised at some time with the Minister concerned when the facts are not in dispute.

Sir J. Eden: Further to that point of order. Surely it is quite wrong, in the first place, that there should be a leak on the tape of this announcement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on the issue which the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise. Raising it again does not alter what I have ruled.

Orders of the Day — FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill replaces the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881. It does so partly upon the basis of the scheme which was formulated at the meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers in April of last year and presented to Parliament in the form of a White Paper in May. That scheme naturally relates only to extradition arrangements between independent Commonwealth countries who were represented at the conference, but the Bill has to be somewhat wider in its scope. It has to deal also with the return of offenders between the United Kingdom and the remaining dependencies. In doing this, it also relies heavily upon the agreed scheme from the conference, but with certain significant modifications to which I shall refer later.
The history of the proposals is as follows. It was obvious for some considerable time before the meeting of the Commonwealth Law Ministers that the system for the return of offenders within the Commonwealth, as set out in the Act of 1881, had been outmoded by the passage of time. The Act was passed at a time when the different territories of the Commonwealth were all parts of one empire and largely subject to a common rule of law. There were no separate sovereign States, and, apart from the distances involved, the return of offenders from one part of the empire to another gave rise to no materially different problems than did the return of offenders from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
The limitations of the 1881 Act were, I believe, clearly revealed by the Enahoro case of 1963. Very close scrutiny was then given by Parliament to the powers of the courts and of the Secretary of State under the Act. Apart from the consideration whether it would or would not be just to return Chief Enahoro, considerable concern was felt in the House at the

absence of any express statutory power, such as exists in the Extradition Act of 1870 in relation to foreign countries, to refuse the surrender of a political offender to another foreign State if that State was a member of the Commonwealth.
Another matter which also figured prominently in the debates in 1963 was the desirability of a discretion not to return an offender in a case where the offence of which he was accused was punishable by death in the requesting country, but not in the requested country —a discretion which in recent years has customarily been incorporated in extradition treaties between the United Kingdom and foreign sovereign States.
A memorandum was circulated by Her Majesty's Government to the other independent Commonwealth Governments in May 1964 as a basis for consultation. It set out the modifications which, from the point of view of the United Kingdom, it seemed desirable to make to the code for the return of offenders in the Act of 1881. The response to the memorandum suggested that it would be helpful to discuss the matter further, and this was done at a Commonwealth Law Ministers' meeting held in Canberra in September 1965.
There emerged from that meeting a general concensus of opinion as to the desirability of uniform arrangements for the return of offenders within the Commonwealth on a more restrictive basis than that provided by the Act of 1881, although there was a variety of views as to the precise nature of the changes which should be made.
A draft scheme, prepared in the light of these views, was accordingly circulated for consideration at the meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers held at Marlborough House from 26th April to 3rd May last year. The meeting came to the view that Commonwealth extradition arrangements should be based upon reciprocity and substantially uniform legislation, incorporating certain features commonly found in extradition treaties, such as a list of returnable offences, establishment of a prima facie case before return, and restrictions upon the return of political offenders.
The Marlborough House meeting went on to formulate a scheme setting out the principles which could form the basis of legislation within the Commonwealth, and


recommended that effect should be given to the scheme in each Commonwealth country. That scheme was published, and I presented it to Parliament in May. 1966.
Proceeding upon this basis, the main object of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom and her dependencies to comply with the requirements of the scheme as it applies to the return of offenders to other independent Commonwealth countries. In doing this, the Bill makes the following major changes in the law governing the return of fugitive offenders to independent Commonwealth countries. First, there will in future be a list of the offences for which an offender can be surrendered. Second, the surrender of political offenders will be prohibited. Third, there will be a discretion not to return a person who would be liable to the death penalty in the requesting country, but not in the requested country. Fourth, the offence for which return is sought will have to be an offence under the law of both countries. Fifth, a "speciality rule" will operate as in the Extradition Act. That is to say, a rule which precludes prosecution, without the consent of the returning country, for any offence committed prior to surrender other than those for which surrender has been granted.
All these changes are based on specific provisions of the scheme. It should, however, be noted that the discretion relating to capital offences is not a general provision of the scheme, but appears in Annex 2 as a supplementary provision. Under paragraph 17 of the Scheme, where a country adopts a supplementary provision, it is open to any other independent Commonwealth country to reserve its position as regards the application of the scheme in relation to the country concerned. This will mean in practice that, as a result of our having taken advantage of the death penalty clause, another Commonwealth country may, quite properly, under the terms of paragraph 17 of the scheme, either impose additional restrictions on the return of offenders to us, or seek to negotiate with us some further or alternative provision for its own offenders.
So far, I have dealt with independent sovereign States within the Commonwealth. The Bill does not, however, deal only with the return of offenders to such independent sovereign Common-

wealth countries. It deals also with the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to the remaining dependencies and, in so far as it may be extended to dependencies as part of their law under Clause 17 of the Bill, with the return of offenders from dependencies to the United Kingdom and, indeed, from one dependency to another.
We did not think it appropriate or desirable that the whole range of safeguards provided in relation to the return of fugitive offenders to independent Commonwealth countries should apply in relation to return to the dependencies. In particular, there will be no list of returnable offences, although to be returnable offences will have to be punishable by a superior court in the receiving country by 12 months' imprisonment or more. Secondly, although there will be a discretion not to return political offenders, their return will not be entirely prohibited because where two countries acknowledge the same sovereignty and one is responsible for the other's defence it may well be right to return a person for, say, an offence of treason or espionage.
So much for the general scope and purpose of the Bill. Before giving an outline of its individual provisions and describing briefly how they implement its purposes, there are two further points of a general nature which might be helpful to the House. First, in so far as the underlying objective of the scheme which the Bill implements is to bring arrangements for the return of offenders between independent Commonwealth countries more closely into line with normal extradition practice, the Bill naturally follows, as far as it is considered appropriate, the terms of the Extradition Act, 1870.
Secondly, I feel that I should endeavour to make clear the position regarding the return of offenders to Rhodesia. It was said in the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Commonwealth Law Ministers meeting, an extract of which is reproduced in the foreword to the scheme, that it was not the intention that the scheme should apply in present circumstances to Rhodesia. The special restrictions on return to Rhodesia which at present operate under the Southern Rhodesia (Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881) Order 1965, preclude return unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that the


return is expedient despite unconstitutional action taken in that country or circumstances arising therefrom. Similar provision could be made under Clause 2(3) which enables Orders in Council to be made modifying the provisions of the Bill in relation to a particular country.
Perhaps I could take the House briefly through the most important individual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 authorises the return from the United Kingdom to designated Commonwealth countries or United Kingdom dependencies of persons found in the United Kingdom who are accused in those countries of relevant offences or are unlawfully at large after conviction of such offences there.
Clause 2 provides for the designation of independent Commonwealth countries and defines dependencies, and enables the provisions of the Bill to be modified by Order in Council in relation to any particular country.
Clause 3, and Schedule 1 which goes with it, together prescribe the offences in respect of which offenders may be returned to designated Commonwealth countries. For the purposes of return to United Kindom dependencies, however, the Schedule does not apply, and an offence will be "returnable" if it is punishable by a superior court in the dependency by 12 months' imprisonment or a heavier penalty. In either case, however, the offence must be one which is recognised by the criminal law of this country as well as of the country to which return is requested.
Clause 4 sets out the circumstances in which the return of offenders is absolutely precluded—for example, in the case of an application from an independent Commonwealth country where the case is of a political nature; in the case of any application where the accused person has already been acquitted or convicted of the offence; or where the requesting country does not operate the speciality rule. The restrictions on the return of political offenders are substantially broader in their scope than those contained in the Extradition Act, 1870. They follow closely the wording of the agreed scheme which, in turn, is based upon a provision in the European Convention on Extradition.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill): My right hon. Friend said earlier that the aim was to conform in this Bill as far as possible with the provisions of the Extradition Act. Now he points out, most helpfully, that in Clause 4, and particularly subsection (1,b), there is a substantial departure from, and an expansion of, the language of the Extradition Act. Would he, in a few sentences, be willing to justify what seems to be an interesting and important departure from the provisions of the 1870 Act?

Mr. Jenkins: The 1870 Act is, in a sense, no more sacrosanct than the 1881 Act, except that the 1870 Act had more relation to the circumstances of the real world because it dealt with totally independent countries, whereas the 1881 Act dealt with what were then dependent countries which have since become independent. Neither scheme is sacrosanct. We approached the meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers on the basis of a desire to get a scheme which was acceptable not only to us but to those represented. This broadening of the political provisions commanded the support of the Commonwealth. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who was present at the conference, can say a few words about this when he winds up. It was not merely acceptable to the conference, but it was positively asked for by certain members represented at the conference. We also thought it desirable to take into account the provisions of the European Extradition Convention, something which is entirely new since the 1870 Act.

Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington): Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between Clause 4(1,b) which deals with the question of a request for a fugitive's return being made in order to punish him for a different purpose, and Clause 8(3,c) because the accusation against him
is not made in good faith in the interests of justice"?
Does not Clause 8(3,c) cover any events likely to arise under Clause 4(1,b)?

Mr. Jenkins: The two provisions may overlap to some extent, but they are not identical. In drawing up the scheme, it was considered desirable to cover both points. Perhaps I could ask my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of


State to say something about that when we have had time to consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman did not quite answer the point of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) about broadening the nature of the political offence. What has been broadened? In what way does the political offence under the Bill differ from that under the Extradition Act?

Mr. Jenkins: I think the offence is broadened in that what is stated in Clause 4 is broader than the position under the Extradition Act, 1870. I said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill that our reason for doing this was twofold: we wished to take into account the European Extradition Convention, and we were concerned at the Conference to secure an agreed scheme. This was the scheme wanted by the others there represented as well as ourselves.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman or to seek to take bread out of his mouth, but surely his answer is not quite correct, and it is a crucial point in the Bill. Both the Extradition Act, 1870, and the Bill contain the phrase "offences of a political character" with a prohibition against extradition in respect of them. The Bill gives a coordinate jurisdiction to the courts and to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of such offences and adds the provisions of Clause 4(1,b) and Clause 8(3,c) to the category of cases in which extradition is prohibited.

Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as is almost invariably the case, has been both helpful and informative and I am grateful for his intervention. The point put to me, however, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was not to ask that I explain to him the difference, but to ask the reason for the difference, which I endeavoured to explain in reply to his question.
Apart from prohibiting return where the offence is of a political character, Clause 4 also prohibits return where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the fugitive on account of his lace, religion, nationality

or political opinions, or if it appears that he might, if returned, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
Clause 5 provides that a request for a fugitive's return shall be made to the Home Secretary, shall be accompanied by specified particulars and shall not be proceeded with except in pursuance of the Home Secretary's authority to proceed.
Clause 6 specifies the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued in the United Kingdom for the arrest of a fugitive offender. Clause 7 deals with the committal proceedings in respect of a person who has been arrested. Clause 8 relates to habeas corpus applications and the comparable process in Scotland in the case of persons who have been committed to await return.
Clause 9 sets out the considerations to be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to order the return of an offender. In particular, it provides a discretion to withhold return where the offence carries the death penalty in the requesting country but not in Great Britain; and, while enabling the return to a dependency of a political offender, it nevertheless affords the Secretary of State a discretion to withhold return in such a case.
The remaining Clauses are mainly procedural and technical, and I do not think that it would be right to weary the House by going through them in detail.
In general, the content of the legislation has been dictated, as I have said in reply to interventions, by the terms of the agreed scheme. The actual form of the Bill in its implementation of the scheme is, however, also important, since it may well serve as a pattern for legislation elsewhere in the Commonwealth, although we are not, as it happens, the first in the field. The Australian Government has already enacted its Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act, 1966, which implements the scheme in Australia. Our Bill is, however, a matter of interest to the other countries of the Commonwealth, and this is a further reason why it is desirable that it should find a place on the statute book as soon as possible.
Before I conclude, I would like to try briefly to set this legislation in perspective. There are not a great number of applications made each year for the return of offenders from this country under the Fugitive Offenders Act. Over the last ten years some 80 applications have been made. There is no consistent pattern: there have been as many as 20 in one year, in 1961, and as few as one in 1965.
Although few in number, there have been cases of complexity and occasionally of extreme political difficulty. As in the case of Chief Enahoro, and the more recent one of Mr. Kwesi Armah, it sometimes happens that a delicate and very difficult decision has to be taken, where our obligations to other countries have to be most carefully weighed in the balance against the rights of the individual. It is, therefore, essential that powers of adequate scope should be available. For that reason, we regard the Bill as a Measure of considerable importance. I believe that it is in accordance with the realities of the modern Commonwealth, that it will commend itself to all sections of opinion in the House and that it will ease, although not obviate, some of the delicate problems in this field with which I and my successors, like my predecessors, may he confronted.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I am sure that the whole House, such as it is at the moment, will thank the Home Secretary for his extremely lucid exposition of this Measure and will agree with him that it is an important Measure. If I do not wholly accept the rest of the encomium with which the right. hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks. I can only say that I hope that my doubts about this are mistaken. I wish the Bill well and I hope that my fears arc wrong, but, for the reason that I shall give, I entertain those fears and I have grave doubts about the wisdom of the Bill.
The voting freedom of action of an Opposition in these circumstances is nil. The right hon. Gentleman, quite correctly and properly, told the House that, except for Clause 17, the provisions of the Bill in general do nothing more than implement the scheme which was the result of

the meetings of Law Officers of the Commonwealth, the latter of the two meetings having taken place at Marlborough House a few months ago.
To my mind—and I hope that hon. Members opposite will understand our position—it would obviously be quite irresponsible of an Opposition either to vote against such a Bill or even to try to amend it in Committee, because in the case of a multilateral agreement changes of detail can render ineffective the whole international agreement. I feel, however, especially as the Home Secretary again very rightly said that what we in this House do will be a pattern for what other Commonwealth countries should seek to do, that whereas our voting freedom of manoeuvre is virtually nil, our freedom of speech should be fairly uninhibited.
I propose to put forward one or two crticisms of the Bill, both from the technical legal point of view and, much more importantly, from the political point of view, because I think that the Bill fails to achieve what it sets out to achieve in the way of easing the difficulties of future Home Secretaries, as the Home Secretary hoped that it world, and that it has certain built-in dangers for future relationships within the Commonwealth which have been perfectly exemplified in the case of Mr. Kwesi Armah. As I shall refer to this in a little more detail, I say to the Home Secretary that I do so not for the purpose of criticising his decision, but because he expressly said that he had taken the criteria of the Bill as among his guidelines in coming to his decision and because, therefore, that particular decision affords an example in practice of how the Bill may work out in detail and shows the kind of difficulty of principle with which the Home Secretary and his successors may be faced.
In passing, although only in passing, may I say that I thought it unfair of the Ghanaian Government to attack the right hon. Gentleman for anticipating the Bill? This they did in a statement which I received from them the other day and which, no doubt, other hon. Members have had. The Ghanaian Government said that the Home Secretary was anticipating legislation, much as we on this side complained that the Government anticipated legislation in the case of the Ombudsman. I regard this


as unjust criticism of the Home Secretary.
The existing Act—the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881—which was the statutory basis on which the Home Secretary operated in the case of Mr. Kwesi Armah, gave the Home Secretary virtually unlimited discretion. That means that in applying his discretion under the existing legislation, the right hon. Gentleman was fully entitled to apply whatever criteria he chose to apply, provided that they stood up to the test of reasonableness. In applying the criteria of the Bill to the particular case, as he claimed to have done, he was fully entitled to take into account that this was a multilateral arrangement arrived at by the Law Ministers of the Commonwealth which they undertook to recommend to their respective Governments. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was correct when he took the Convention into account, and the fact that the Government proposed to legislate upon it. His conduct in that respect at least was wholly beyond criticism. Certainly I would not wish to criticise it.
At the same time, the case of Mr. Kwesi Armah, occurring as it has done when this piece of legislation was pending and published, enables one to see in detail the way in which some of the problems work out between members of the Commonwealth. I propose, for that reason alone, to refer to it.
Everyone has agreed that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, required revision in the light of the changed nature of the Commonwealth. That has been known since the Enahoro case, and if the Law Ministers at their meetings had simply done what the communiqué said they set out to do, the resulting legislation would have been beyond reproach.
Here I quote the communiqué which succeeded the Law Ministers' Meeting. What they set out to do was this:
The Meeting considered that Commonwealth extradition arrangements should be based upon reciprocity and substantially uniform legislation incorporating certain features commonly found in extradition treaties, e.g. a list of returnable offences, the establishment of a prima facie case before return, and restrictions on the return of political offenders.
All those features are found in the Extradition Act, 1870, which is the existing law upon which bilateral and multi-

lateral extradition treaties are based. Virtually all incorporate those features, and the Act incorporates those features as a limiting statute. If they had gone on to do that in the present scheme and nothing more, everyone would have agreed with it. Unfortunately, they chose instead to publish a scheme which did that and a good deal more and, even when it did that, it did it in terms slightly different from the Extradition Act, 1870.
The basic error which they made was in not going back to first principles. Having decided that, in the light of the changed nature of the Commonwealth, they wanted to move over to an extradition procedure, they ought first to have taken the existing Extradition Act more or less in toto and then asked themselves what special differences the nature of the Commonwealth relationship imposed on the Government, either because of the peculiarly intimate relationships of Commonwealth Governments to one another, or because of the special position here of the Commonwealth citizen amongst United Kingdom citizens. If they had done that, they would have achieved a good piece of work.
Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that the Enahoro case does not exemplify the chief disadvantages of the Fugitive Offenders Act. On the contrary, as I shall try to show as I proceed with my argument, all the difficulties which arose in the Enahoro case were difficulties inherent in the situation between Commonwealth countries, whatever legislation was proposed. As I shall try to show, they are not solved by the proposed legislation. On the contrary, it enhances rather than reduces them.
The principal difficulties about the Fugitive Offenders Act were not those which emerged in the Enahoro case. There was a purely technical difficulty which consisted in the use of the curious phrase "strong or probable presumption" in the committal clause which gave rise to a number of conflicting and highly undesirable judicial decisions about it and led the courts to make a decision which was misunderstood for many years. In addition, there was the absence of a list of returnable offences. To my mind, the present Bill cures both those defects completely. However, it does so by a series of proposals which seem to me to have both legal and political disadvantages.
I do not want to detain the House by dealing with legal disadvantages, except for a very short paragraph. The main legal disadvantage is this. As I ventured to say to the House in a very different context during the debate which we had on immigration, we have to ask ourselves this question. Now that Commonwealth countries are independent sovereign entities, what possible advantage is there, from the legal point of view or from the social or political point of view, in having two codes of law dealing with persons whose citizenship is external to this country so close to each other as the law of immigrants in relation to aliens and the law of Commonwealth immigrants have become, yet differing in detail and in technical jargon at every point?
My general conclusion is that there is no such advantage, and that there should be a general law dealing with external persons, proceeding to particular modifications of it either for or against individual Commonwealth citizens. This would ease to a great extent both the problems of immigration and the problems of extradition.
However, so far as one can judge, the Law Ministers have gone on precisely the opposite tack and have chosen to use a separate legal jargon even when the words mean the same thing. That seems to be a procedure designed to make the law more complicated and less intelligible for the sake of making it so.
In the Extradition Act, the offences are called "extradition crimes". In the Bill, they are "relevant offences". In the scheme, they were "returnable offences". The name of the fugitive offender is one thing in the Extradition Act. It is quite another in the Bill. If one takes the language of the Bill, Clause by Clause, one finds that, for no apparent reason, the Parlimentary draftsman in this country or the Law Ministers at the meetings have deliberately chosen to confuse counsel by calling the same people different names.
The two fundamental rules of legal draftsmanship are, respectively, plagiarism and repetition. Those are not the same—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): There was difficulty at this conference to

which, in some ways, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing full justice. Provisions which are clear in our law under the Extradition Act are not necessarily clear provisions under the Extradition Acts of Commonwealth countries. What may have been convenient phraseology was not necessarily convenient phraseology for other members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that that answers the point at all. Precisely the same difficulty exists between England and France, for instance. We have no obligation under any convention to use particular words in our Statute. All that we are under an obligation to do is to legislate the thing. We have got over that difficulty in the Extradition Act by having an Act and a series of bilateral treaties. There are half-a-dozen ways in which the difficulty could have been overcome, but it seems to have been deliberately enhanced in the present case by the draftsmanship of the Bill.
As one who seeks to practise the law from time to time in a rather chequered career, I must make my little protest. Over the 34 years since I first obtained a professional qualification, I should think that the complication and unintelligibility of English law has increased by a factor of not less than 100. This is an example of the way it is done unnecessarily, making it more difficult for the ordinary citizen to ascertain what his rights and liabilities may be.
I do not think that this is any longer a point simply for lawyers to discuss. The unintelligibility and irrationality of our law, at a time when the citizen is better educated and therefore more and more anxious to discover what his rights and liabilities are, are becoming a public scandal. This is an example of how it could have been avoided in a particular instance.
I pass from the purely legalistic approach to the political approach, which it infinitely more important. Commonwealth countries are, not unnaturally, proud of the independence and integrity of their judicial systems. They are, quite properly, jealous of the reputation for independence and fairmindedness of their Executives. Whether or not the latter source of pride is as well justified as the former I would not be eager to discuss in


the course of the passage of the Bill. Very largely the judiciary of Commonwealth countries, now that they have become independent, is something of which they may justly be very proud.
The Extradition Act, 1870, provided, first, that the courts would ordinarily decide whether an offence was of a political character. When it had gone through the courts and that issue was determined, the Home Secretary of the day was left with a discretion as to whether to return the offender, having regard to the nature of the regime, which in 1870 included the imperial regime in Russia and other very authoritarian regimes in Europe, and other factors.
The Bill does quite the opposite. It provides, first, that the question of what crimes are of a political character should be one on which both the courts and the Home Secretary should pronounce separately and independently of one another; and, secondly, it gives to both the courts and the Home Secretary, separately from one another but still in tandem with one another, the right to spell out in detail the circumstances in which a wise and liberal Government of this country might refuse to return a putative offender. That seems to me to have the worst of all possible worlds.
Here again, I return to the case of Kwesi Armah. He went through the existing procedure, which for this purpose is not markedly different. He was arrested. He went before a stipendary magistrate in London. He went to the Divisonal court on, I think, a habeas corpus. He applied for leave to appeal, although it was refused by the House of Lords. The courts decided, in effect, that this was not an offence of a political character. Thousands of £s, perhaps tens of thousands of £s, for aught I know, were spent upon this legal argument in the three tiers of our judicial system—presumably spent by Mr. Kwesi Armah and presumably spent by the Ghanaian Government, who were on the other side.
At the end of the day, the world has the impression that, for reasons which he does not disclose and has refused to disclose in both Houses of Parliament, here by his own person and in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Longford, the Home Secretary has come to a different conclusion. He may have been right.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in thinking that under the existing legislation the issue before the courts was whether this was a political offence.

Mr. Hogg: This may be so, but it is one of the things the courts were discussing. Whether or not it be so, under the legislation which is proposed, this will be the question which the courts will be discussing. It means, in effect, that, after the most elaborate judgments have been given in our three-tiered judicial system, the Home Secretary of the day, whoever he may be, can, at a single stroke of the pen, cancel the decision of the courts on that point and do so without assigning any reason whatever.
I would merely say this to the Home Secretary about the Bill. It may be that the courts are wrong. They are not infallible. But, in that case, why waste time on the judicial process? It cannot be right to build into legislation a system with this potential in it for disagreement between the Executive and the judiciary. It surely would have been right to leave the question of the political character of the offence, as it is under the Extradition Act, to the courts and leave the Home Secretary an unfettered discretion, without spelling it out, to deal with the matters appropriate to his decision.
The difficulty would have been avoided simply by adopting the existing law. Further than that, the political danger that the Home Secretary might be seen to attack the Government of an independent sovereign State would have been avoided. This, if it did not arise in the case of Kwesi Armah, to which I must return again, certainly could arise in some future case and certainly did arise in the case of Enahoro. That seems to be a major defect in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything in the nature of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth relationship which on that point makes the relationship between our countries different from that, for instance, between Italy and this country and between Western Germany and this country.
Let us take this a little further. Clause 4(1,b) and (1,c)—that is, the danger that the man may be persecuted for his religion, his race, or for other improper reasons—must call in question the integrity of the Government of the State


seeking the return of the fugitive offender. The Home Secretary in the Bill not merely allows that to be argued in court—in public—but also put it upon himself and his successors to decide that ticklish question.
The Home Secretary tried to find himself an alibi in the case of Kwesi Armah by saying that this was a case which could have been prosecuted here. I will discuss that alibi in a moment or two. It was a sprung alibi, so I did not quite castigate the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently for it when he mentioned his decision in the House. Whether that alibi is good or bad, the Home Secretary can never be certain in future cases that it will be applicable.
The right hon. Gentleman has put himself and his successors in the position of having to impugn, even if the courts have not, the good faith of an independent Commonwealth country when there was absolutely no necessity for him to do so. The Extradition Act, which had to deal with precisely similar problems on the Continent of Europe in the 19th century, left the discretion with the Home Secretary discreetly silent, so that he did not have to spell out an insult to independent countries when he suspected the motives of their Governments. He is now compelled to insult them in order to do justice. This is wholly unnecessary.
This is what worries me in a case like the present, where the Bill spells out the criteria which the Home Secretary feels himself obliged to use; and the Home Secretary, out of discretion, is compelled to remain wholly silent as to the real reasons which led him to over-rule the court's decision. It seems to me that this was wholly unnecessary. I agree that it is inherent in the scheme recommended by the Law Ministers, but in this case I differ from them, and I think it my duty to point out the evils which I think will flow from their mistake.
What they ought to have done—and I shall come back to this—is to have applied the general extradition law with modifications. Instead, they tried, without going into first principles, to spell out a new law—not such a good one—between themselves, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary

of State could deal with my doubts about this.
Let us consider a case of murder, to which Clause 9(4) applies. This is the death penalty subsection. The Home Secretary can refuse to extradite for murder in those parts of the Commonwealth where the death penalty still applies. The difference between a foreign and a Commonwealth citizen—and it is this to which the Law Ministers ought to have applied their attention, and must inevitably have done if they had got down to proper legal principles—is that although the extradition of an alien may be refused, he can be asked to leave. He can be deported and made to go. His licence to stay here may be taken away. This cannot be done with a Commonwealth citizen. We have no proper right to deport or to refuse to allow to stay here a Commonwealth citizen whom we do not extradite.
The effect of Clause 9(4) in relation to murder will be that a Home Secretary of the future, and the present Home Secretary, if the Bill becomes law, unless I am wrong—and as I say I hope to be proved wrong because I am raising these things not to hurt but to help—will be faced with a horrible dilemma. A man may be charged with a horrible murder in a country where the death penalty survives, having an appalling record of violence behind him. The Home Secretary will be faced with the dilemma either of allowing him to be extradited and executed if he is convicted, or of allowing a putative murderer, that is to say a man against whom a prima facie case of murder exists, and who may have an appalling record of violence, to be at large in this country without being able to deport him. I may be wrong about this, but did the Law Ministers, who are presumably professionals of one kind or another, think of this? Why did they not legislate for it, if I am wrong?
Let us take this a stage further and apply it to political crimes. In the 19th century, when the extradition law was devised, the political situation in Europe was such that there were a great number of countries against whose Governments, or even against whose sovereigns, there could be conspiracies either to overthrow them by force or to murder individuals—the head of State or the head of Government—and we know in our own


unhappy lifetimes that murders of members of Royal families have led to world wars. The Extradition Act provided for that.
We can cause the criminal to leave without extraditing him under the Extradition Act. In other words, a man who wants to kill General de Gaulle—and the Home Secretary knows that I am not dealing with a hypothetical case because a well-publicised case occurred not long ago—or a man who wants to overthrow a friendly Government by force, can come to this country, and if he is not a member of the Commonwealth the Home Secretary can say, "I will not extradite this man because his offence is of a political character, and I shall be sending him to his death. But I shall ask him to leave because it would be intolerable that a neighbour should harbour a source of conspiracy in Britain so near a friendly country".
But in the case of the Commonwealth a man may conspire against the life of the head of Government of a friendly Commonwealth country, or against the life of a head of State, and the Home Secretary will not only be entitled, but will be bound, under the terms of this Bill, to refuse extradition, because that will almost certainly be a political offence, and even if the Home Secretary does not do it the courts can do it before it reaches him. But if the man is not extradited the Home Secretary will have no alternative but to release him, and when he does so he will have no power of deportation and no power to invite him to go somewhere else and carry on his conspiracies there.
This is not a hypothetical case, because the Home Secretary has rightly referred in this connection to Enahoro. In this case most of the critics stop at the point when Enahoro left these shores, or if they follow him into Nigeria they point out that he was convicted and shut up in prison. But Abu Bakr, who was sworn in at Her Majesty's Privy Council when I was Lord President there, against whose life Enahoro was alleged to have made a conspiracy, is dead, and he was the victim of murder, though not at the hands of Enahoro. If the conspiracy had taken place here, the conspirators would have been allowed to remain at large.
Under the Bill which the Law Ministers in their infinite wisdom have evolved as

a result of two meetings, if a man were accused, or convicted for that matter, in Nigeria of trying to murder the head of State or the head of Government, I cannot see that this could not be an offence of a political character. If so, his return would be prohibited, but the Home Secretary would have no discretion. He would have to let him live here and avail himself of all the freedom of a Commonwealth person to go on with what he is about. Why am I wrong about that?
Let us consider the position of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. The Home Secretary knows very well that I am not dealing with a hypothetical case. He will remember the stir in this country during two recent Royal visits. He will remember the occasion involving Ghana, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) had to carry out a preliminary reconnaissance with Mr. Nkrumah to satisfy public opinion here, and he will remember, too, the Canadian visit, where some foolish Separatists in Quebec issued threats.
Suppose it were the case that a conspiracy was made against the Queen in her capacity as Sovereign of one or other of the Commonwealth States, or against her position as Head of the Commonwealth. Let us suppose that it was to be a political assassination. Under this Bill, if it was a political conspiracy, there would be no extradition. There would be no right to ask the person to leave, and the Queen would be living here. What did the Law Ministers think they were about when they made this kind of convention amongst themselves?
I do not think that I am mistaken about this. I think that there are grave difficulties. There are grave difficulties at the political level between the Governments. There are grave difficulties at the legal level. They could be avoided if the Home Secretary would only do what I have asked him for the second time to do, and that is to see that there is a common code for aliens and Commonwealth citizens, and that movements away from that common code are related to first principles and to the essential nature of the Commonwealth relationship.
I regard the Bill and these meetings of Commonwealth Ministers as a thoroughly botched job. I think that they missed a great opportunity to bring the law into a rational state. I think that they have


achieved worse, instead of achieving better, and although our voting pattern is wholly inhibited by the nature of the Convention, I hope I am wrong, but I believe that I am right in some of the criticisms which I have uttered.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: When I listen to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) it often happens that I agree with much that he has to say: it seldom happens that I agree with all that he has to say. This occasion is true to the rule. With much that he had to say about the dangers in this Bill I feel a good deal of sympathy. Like him, I believe that the greatest interest in the Bill attaches to the restrictions on the return of fugitives in cases where the offences are of a political character—that is, the contents of Clause 4.
I would have thought that in this legislation it was desirable that for this purpose Commonwealth countries should be placed on as nearly the same footing as possible as other countries. On that basic point the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in agreement with me. There should be a common base, and any points of nuance, distinction or difference arising from our special relations with Commonwealth countries, or in the relations among Commonwealth countries, should start from that common base.
I also agree with him when he asks why, in this matter, we should have two separate codes, when one is sufficient. If a desirable object is to place Commonwealth countries and other countries upon the same footing, as far as possible, that is not the effect of the Bill. In the points that I am making I am not at this stage expressing criticism of the Bill; I am drawing attention to matters which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to deal with in his reply.
There may be explanations and justifications for the form of the provisions in Clause 4 but, as I understand it, the restrictions on return spelt out in that Clause are by no means expressed in the same terms—or even in like terms—as those of Section 3 of the Extradition Act, 1870. I ventured to intervene

in the course of my right hon. Friend's speech in order to ask why this was so. It seems a pity that that should be the case. It is true that the words
offence of a political character
occur in both this Bill and the 1870 Act, but in the Bill these terms appear:
a person shall not be returned"—
that is, at the request of a Commonwealth Government—
if it appears … that the request … is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him"—
not, as in the case of the 1870 Act, for an offence of a political character but
on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions …
If I am mistaken I hope that I shall be corrected. I do not wish to take up the time of the House if I am wrong. But in the last passage that I have read there seems to be a most significant departure from the language of the 1870 Act. At first sight it seems an unnecessary departure, pregnant with possible difficulties. There may be a satisfactory explanation. If there is I shall be happy to hear it.
A result of what I have just said—if it is accurate—is that the Bill provides for wider grounds for refusing the request when it comes from a Commonwealth country than when it comes from any other country. There are wider grounds than the grounds set out in the Extradition Act. Politically, if "dangerous" is too strong a word, at least there appears to be a possible source of difficulty here. It may be that from some points of view it is good sense to speak, as the Bill does, of
his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
It may be sensible enough partly because the courts in considering this branch of the law, have seen fit in certain circumstances to put a somewhat narrow construction upon the phrase, "of a political nature" or "a political offence". I have in mind the Zacharia and Castioni cases.
It could be argued that the time had come to widen the ambit of the mischief that it was desirable to overcome in this matter, but it is very odd that the decision to widen the grounds for resisting a request for the return of an offender should be made to apply to a Commonwealth country before it is made to apply to any other country. I do not suggest


that it was anybody's intention, but a possible implication is that Commonwealth countries are regarded as more oppressive than the rest. I have no doubt that that is not the belief of the Government, but that is a possible and undesirable implication of the provision.
I must point out that I put the point by way of inquiry. I welcome the Bill in principle, because it is needed. If we were confronted with a Bill which, at the same time as it quite properly and fairly altered the law existing between Commonwealth countries, altered the language of the 1870 Act—after appropriate international negotiations—I would not have any even incipient criticisms to offer. But I am concerned with a change of the law which has the effect of widening the power of this country to reject a request coming from a Commonwealth country beyond the ambit where it can reject requests of other States. There is a potential political danger there.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out the possible difficulty arising between the Home Secretary and the judiciary from the spelling out of the responsibilities of each in the Bill. I shall not follow up that point, although there is a good deal of substance in it. But I am particularly concerned and anxious about the failure in the Bill—which, considered by itself, has in other respects many admirable qualities—to bring Commonwealth countries on to the same footing as other States in Clause 4.

5.20 p.m.

Sir David Renton: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made a very interesting speech and some very cogent criticisms of the Bill. In view of the very powerful and very full speech which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made, I can speak at fairly short length. I must say that, if it were feasible to do so, I should wish to vote against the Bill altogether, but one realises the difficulties of conducting these many-sided negotiations with other countries.
However, I cannot but feel that the United Kingdom Government must have taken a lead in obtaining this agreement from other Commonwealth countries, and

I think that the results are very unhappy and unfortunate—unfortunate from the technical point of view, as my right hon. and learned Friend has shown; unfortunate from the political point of view, which could conceivably lead to discord between different Commonwealth countries; and unfortunate in practice because, although it may not have the same results in other Commonwealth countries, it could have the result of making the United Kingdom a place to which dissident politicians in all parts of the Commonwealth will tend to resort.
The first thing that we have to bear in mind in the context of the Bill—it has not yet been mentioned—is that in each case the Commonwealth citizen concerned will have got here somehow. In the case of Mr. Kwesi Armah, he came here in an official capacity; that capacity ceased, and then he remained here. But in many other cases the person will have come here and will have asked for leave to land under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and a junior, but excellent, immigration officer will have taken the decision and have decided to grant him leave to land in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the limited discretion given to the immigration officer.
In other cases—it is these cases which we must bear in mind, and in regard to which I should like to ask a question of the Under-Secretary—there will have been a demand for political asylum. In other words, the very question which will ultimately have to be considered by the courts and finally by the Home Secretary will have been decided at an early stage. The person will, in effect, say, "I am fleeing from my own country because I am afraid of what will happen to me there because I am a politician and am accused of committing offences of a political character".
In passing, I would point out that that is exactly what Guy Fawkes could have said when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms under the same Crown, which was, I believe, the constitutional position at the time when he tried to blow up Parliament. He might have tried to gain admission to Scotland, and he would have hoped to get political asylum there, and the question that the Scots would have had to decide would have been whether he should be allowed to stay there or whether he should face his


trial in England, where, although in those days we had the Star Chamber, the courts for the most part had a reputation for a developing sense of justice. We have reached a position with this Bill before us at which we must make up our minds that, with the help which we have given in the past, the Governments and the courts of the Commonwealth are to be trusted. If we work on any other assumption we shall be making a wrong decision in relation to this Bill.
Having said all that in parenthesis, I come back to the question which arises when somebody comes here and the immigration officer understands that it is a matter of political asylum. That matter, of course, the immigration officer will not decide he will refer it at once to the Home Office. The matter might even go up to a Minister, but it is not likely to be the Home Secretary at first. So a decision will have been made to let the person stay here, he having been granted political asylum.
Then the man's own country, which may be extremely vexed, and rightly so, by the offence which he has committed, will ask for his return under the Bill. Will the Home Secretary really approach the matter with an open mind when it comes to applying the provisions of Clause 4? Are we not making it very much too easy under the provisions of Clause 4 for a person to stay here once he has got here, whether as a person who claims political asylum and was granted it, or who got here in any other legitimate way, or perhaps even by escaping the immigration control, and perhaps even on a forged passport?
I wonder whether I might refer to the case of Kwesi Armah in very much the same way as did my right hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary—and like my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not blame the Home Secretary for having done so—said after the Bill had been published but before it had been discussed that he relied not only upon the existing law which gives him a discretion under the Fugitive Offenders Act, but also specifically upon paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 4 of the Bill.
I had two Questions down to the Home Secretary last Thursday asking him, as

lawyers say, for further and better particulars, and I have really had no answer. The Answer that I was given referred to his original statement on Thursday of the week before last in which he merely said that he was exercising his discretion under the Fugitive Offenders Act. It was in answer to a supplementary question by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) that the Home Secretary opened up the position under Clause 4 of the Bill.
I venture to suggest that the courts of Ghana and the Government of Ghana are entitled to be told exactly why it was that the Home Secretary said that he relied upon paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 4(1) of the Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Sir D. Renton: I am trying to develop a rather technical argument. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop it, I think it might be better. This is not an easy matter to deal with if one is to be interrupted. I tend to give way almost too freely, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me on this occasion.
Unless that position is clarified, the Ghana Government will not know where they stand and may feel hesitant about responding to the invitation which the Government have given them to prosecute Kwesi Armah in our courts. Certainly it would appear, bearing in mind the offence alleged against him, that something should happen, that either he should be tried in this country, prosecuted by the Government of Ghana, or prosecuted—I do not see why he should not be—by the authorities in this country, or that he should be returned to Ghana.
When an offence of the kind alleged and on the scale alleged may have been committed, I do not think that it is right, or in the interests of law and order or of justice in this country, for the Government to appear to be allowed to let the matter drift. This must be brought to a conclusion in some way or another, and I am quite confident that if Mr. Kwesi Armah is innocent he will be acquitted in this country. I am also confident that, if the case against him is not established in his own country, the


undertaking given by the Ghana Government to allow him to leave the country within 30 days after his acquittal will be honoured. There is no reason to believe that it would not be.
As I said, the speeches which have been made enable me to address the House very briefly, but I cannot resist suggesting that the Long Title of the Bill, if one works out the implications of the Bill, would more accurately read something like this: "A Bill to make politicians in all parts of the Commonwealth easy victims of murder, violence and other offences; to prevent the trial of politicians against whom such offences are alleged; to open the United Kingdom to dissident politicians from all parts of the Commonwealth; and for purposes connected therewith".

5.32 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I find myself in a very great measure of agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Indeed, I got the impression, almost, that he must have been reading my speech in an earlier debate, because the point which he made was an extension of what I then argued would be an inevitable result of taking the action which the then Opposition would have taken.
This Bill comes before the House only because of the change in the law proposed by Clause 4. The Bill as a whole is an improvement on the law in this connection contained in the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, but the Home Secretary forbore to mention that the Extradition Act, 1870, is even older and I think that all hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out that that Act is every bit as much in need of improvement and amendment. Indeed, one of the ludicrous results of the passing of this Bill will be that we shall have a law relating to capital punishment in this connection effective as against Commonwealth countries but not, as I understand it, as against foreign countries. I think that this is a matter which could and should be taken up by the hon. Member for Nelsen and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman).
The substance of the Bill is to extend the restrictions on the power to extradite political fugitives from the Commonwealth. That is what the Bill does. I

regret that in principle, and I agree with what everyone has said during the debate—that the machinery in the Bill for doing it is unsatisfactory.
In speaking about the principle I am not sure that I shall find so many friends on either side of the House. The present law, as contained in the Act of 1881, permits extradition to Commonwealth countries even when the offence in question is of a political character, and the basis for doing this in the case of Commonwealth countries and not permitting it in the case of foreign countries rests on the principle of allegiance, the common allegiance which all British subjects, whether in these islands or in any part of Her Majesty's domains, owes to the Sovereign. There are, of course, some aliens who also owe such allegiance, but this is a technical point and I do not think that I need trouble the House with it. Broadly speaking, British subjects owe allegiance and aliens do not.
This is not just a technical, legal matter. It involves very important rights and very important duties. The duties are to respect the established institutions under the Sovereign, and not to seek to undermine them or to overthrow them otherwise than lawfully. The rights which were, until not very long ago, to enter this country and to leave this country freely, are still very extensive by comparison with the rights of aliens. A British subject is no longer, of course, free to enter and leave at will, but he is very much freer to come here than any alien, and he cannot be deported except under very strict rules laid down by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
This Bill abolishes the legal recognition of the duty of allegiance outside the United Kingdom. That is a very serious matter. At the same time, it leaves substantial rights to overseas British subjects unaffected. Obligations without rights are detestable, but rights without obligations are equally so. The Bill takes away the one remaining special obligation attaching to a British subject as such, and the obligation having been taken away, I am sure that the rights, and indeed the very status, of British subjects will follow in due course, and I regret that.
There may be an exception to what I have said, and I should like the Government to answer this when they reply


to the debate. I am not certain how the offence of treason fits into the Bill. An alien, of course, cannot commit treason, but is treason an offence of a political character within the meaning of Clause 4?

Mr. Hogg: As far as I can see it is not in Schedule I and is, therefore, not one of the returnable offences, unless I am mistaken.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That may be so, but I am not certain how the Bill is intended to apply to treason.

Sir J. Hobson: May it not also be the fact that treason against Her Majesty in right of the Crown in the United Kingdom would be triable here, but if committed anywhere in the Commonwealth it is a very difficult question indeed? The question which arises in the case of treason against Her Majesty in the right of the Crown, say, in Canada, and committed in Canada, is whether that would be treason here.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: These are the very points which have been bothering me. I hope that before we give the Bill a Second Reading the Government will make some comments on this issue. It is of very great importance.
May I say why I do not like the machinery of the Bill? This country claims to be able to exercise a right of asylum for alien political offenders who seek refuge here. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, we retain in the case of alien refugees here the absolute right to deport them at any time for any reason whatever, and without giving any reason. But we can deport a British subject from here only under very strictly defined rules. It seems to me that the result of the Bill becoming law will be to make the country a hotbed of plotters against Commonwealth Governments overseas. It is within the general knowledge of the House that certain members of the Commonwealth are not without their political plotters, and if they can come here and carry on with whatever they are doing without any risk whatever of being extradited or deported, we shall be in a difficult and dangerous position.
There is another aspect of the matter which I also find disturbing. Much reference has been made to the case of Mr. Kwesi Armah. May I refer to what was said by the Lord Privy Seal in another place on 26th January? He quoted as follows from what had been said by the Home Secretary in this House:
I thought it right in exercising my discretion under Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 in this case to take account of all the relevant circumstances, including the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Bill now before the House …'
Later the Lord Privy Seal said that he had not laid bare all the factors exercising the Home Secretary's mind. Later again, he said:
My Lords, I am afraid that, for the reasons given, I am not at liberty—and I am sure that the Home Secretary will take the same line elsewhere—to give more details in public. But, as the noble Lord has given a certain interpretation to the Bill I mentioned, I would just say that I do not necessarily accept his interpretation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th January, 1967; Vol. 279, c. 689–90.]
This leaves me in some doubt and difficulty. The point put to the Lord Privy Seal was to ask whether Mr. Kwesi Armah was accused of committing an ordinary offence. He was asked on what ground the Home Secretary had said that, in spite of the fact that this was an accusation of an ordinary offence, it would be regarded as a political offence if he were, so to speak, using this Bill as his authority for so doing. I feel in very great difficulty, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in this connection. I should like a much clearer statement from the Government on how this part of the Bill will work. Are we to put an obligation on the Home Secretary to say that he regards the offence as a political offence? If so, will he be obliged to say on what grounds? Or is he merely to say that he regards it as political, and are we to accept that?
I am not certain that I like the result of the Bill either way, but of one thing I am certain—there must be some rule and the House must know where it stands, because either the Home Secretary will be pressed to give his reasons, and it may be bad for the country that he should have to do so, or he will refuse to give his reasons, in which case it will be bad for the procedure in this House that we


should be left in the dark. We want a good deal more explanation about that.
It is fashionable to question the value of the Commonwealth these days, and even those who are in favour of the Commonwealth as it is now constituted speak of it as if it were something of a metaphysical affair. Hitherto that has not been the case. There are real rights and real obligations attaching to all of its members. The Bill undermines the obligations, and it very nearly, if not entirely, removes them altogether. This may be an inevitable process. Perhaps it is. If that be so, the Bill is no more than bowing to the inevitable; but no one should rejoice at its becoming law.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Clause 4 of the Bill is the nub of the matter. I should like to add to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about the political dangers involved in the inquiries which have to be made under subsection 4(1,b) and 4(1,c). He emphasised the difficulties in which the Home Secretary would be involved in inquiring whether the purpose of the request for return was for
prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions
or alternatively
that he might, if returned, be prejudiced …or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of
these matters.
But the Home Secretary's problems are as nothing compared with the problems of the courts. There is in this a curious parallel jurisdiction. It is not only the Home Secretary but the courts, the Court of Committal and the High Court, that have to inquire into these matters. I visualise long elaborate historical evidence being produced for the first time in our judicial system by persons who do not wish to be extradited or repatriated, or whatever the right term under the Bill may be. They are entitled to produce, and indeed they must produce, evidence, in public, in open court, relating to the whole set-up of the courts of the country concerned, all of which will no doubt be highly prejudicial, all reported all over the world and all likely to cause more ructions poitically than anything I can imagine. I cannot understand how the

Government can believe that this will produce a more amenable, a more convenient, comfortable and oiled system of relationship than we have had before.
It has hitherto been the practice of the courts in the matter of the extraditing of foreigners to reject at all costs any such inquiry. In a famous case dealing with the Extradition Acts, Lord Russell of Killowen, at the turn of the century, refused absolutely to enter into such inquiry. He said that the allegation, which was of course by a foreigner, that he would not get a proper trial or that his trial would be prejudiced conveyed a reflection of the gravest possible kind not only upon the motives and the actions of the responsible Government but also impliedly upon the judicial authorities of a neighbouring and friendly Power. He asked:
Is it open to us to consider such a suggestion? In my judgment it is not. This question bears upon the political aspect of extradition and it must be borne in mind upon a consideration of matters into which this court is not competent and has no authority to enter.
However much we give the courts authority, we cannot give them competence in this matter, because to be competent to judge upon the motives and complexion of not only the Government but of the courts of a friendly country involves an inquiry lasting weeks and months, and, whatever the outcome, it is bound to produce most serious diplomatic repercussions. Hitherto in our law, the courts have always been anxious to avoid that and have accepted the certificate of the relevant Department of the Government as to whether or not in matters of foreign and external relations of this sort such-and-such are the facts. The courts will not, as far as possible, go behind that, and for very good reason.
But now—I do not understand how the Law Officers gathered together in their conference agreed to this—the courts of all the Commonwealth countries are to inquire into those matters. For example, if the Bill be extended to the Republic of Ireland, as there is power to do under a later Clause, and an Ulsterman claimed that he would not have a fair trial in Dublin, then, however much they might disbelieve the Ulsterman, the courts would have to go, day after day, into all the evidence relating to the religious


history of the Irish Republic—[An HON. MEMBER: "And vice versa."]—and vice versa. It is an incredible prospect opened before us.
Moreover, this is to apply all over the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth, although a great multiracial concept, is riddled with race and religious divisions. In any case in which politics was involved with race and religion, as it is throughout the British Commonwealth, the whole history of the State in question would be opened up before the magistrate at Bow Street or the High Court of Justice. I can see no end to the litigation, and I can see no end to the damage which will be caused to our relations within the Commonwealth.

Sir D. Renton: Might there not be occasions in the circumstances which my hon. and learned Friend has described when judges in one country would be deciding upon the competence and impartiality of judges in another country with whom they had studied here in the United Kingdom, where so many were trained?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Certainly, and probably eaten dinners together in one of the Inns of Court. It would be a most disagreeable and loathsome jurisdiction to have to exercise, and quite unique.
The truth of the matter is that these functions to be performed under Clause 4(1) should be not co-ordinate and parallel but separate. It is the function of a court, because it is a justiciable issue, to decide whether an offence is a political offence or not. It is a very difficult decision. It needs greater definition both in this law and in the law of extradition between foreign States, and I hope that some day this will be done, because our law of extradition depends upon a lot of nineteenth-century and earlier thought which is no longer applicable. But I think it possible. There is here a justiciable dispute.
But these questions of the exact nature of foreign Governments and Commonwealth Governments in their practice, in their courts and elsewhere do not present justiciable matters at all. Yet they remain in parallel with the Secretary of State's decision competent to the lower court and to the High Court of Justice.

As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out, we are opening up unnecessary new ground. Although the general purpose of the Bill is to equate the law of extradition with that of the return of Commonwealth offenders, we are here going much further. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State will explain why, in the conference which he attended, it was necessary to add the jurisdiction of the courts in this way. I do not believe that it is necessary, and I believe that it gravely prejudices the future smooth operation of the Fugitive Offenders Bill.
I have said that we all agree in wishing to equate the law relating to fugitive offenders within the Commonwealth to that of the extradition of foreigners, but that motive and that passion are modified in my case. They are modified because I do not believe that the law of extradition as regards foreign States is a model in twentieth-century conditions. It raises all sorts of anomalies. For example, I wonder what would have happened if Lee Harvey Oswald, instead of being shot by Mr. Ruby, had found refuge in this country. Under our extradition laws, would the offence have been regarded as a political offence and, if so, would not extradition have been refused? If so, would we then have had to keep that gentleman here for the rest of his life? Even if it had not been considered a political offence on the ground that it was a one-man show and not part of a conspiracy—assuming that to be the case—would extradition have been refused because the law of Texas has the death penalty? And then what would have happened to him? There are many anomalies in this matter, and one has to think of such examples if only to see how the law of extradition is by no means the model that it is cracked up to be in many quarters.
Nevertheless, even in its imperfect state, I should have thought that our law of extradition was better than the Bill before us. Under the Bill not only do we have this extraordinary extension of the powers of the courts to inquire into the bona fides of Commonwealth courts, but it is founded on the unexpressed but very serious difference that we cannot deport the Commonwealth


citizen as we can deport the foreigner. Therefore, the rigidity of the rules relating to extradition—if I had time, I could show that they are a nineteenth-century growth having very little relationship to the twentieth century world—can nevertheless be softened or the harshness of the consequences mollified by the fact that, although the offender may not be extradited, we can get rid of him very often—though not always. But this does not apply to the Commonwealth citizen.
I fear that we shall become the dumping ground for political criminals—and not all that political in many cases—from all over the Commonwealth. If a man has either previously or subsequently committed an ordinary crime, it is very easy for him to claim that some crime he has committed is of a political character, and I very much question the strength of the "speciality rules" which the Home Secretary mentioned in opening. I doubt that the Home Secretary himself really believes in them, and I doubt also that he would in many cases extradite Commonwealth citizens to a Commonwealth country on the "speciality" proviso, because it is worth very little.
Whereas I had hoped that we should have a Bill which smoothed the edges of the difficulties which were discovered in the Enahoro case, and I had hoped that the Government would take the opportunity to look at the extradition laws as well as these laws in the same package deal, it seems that we have got a very dusty answer.
My right hon. and learned Friend has told us that we must not do more than voice our criticisms, on the grounds that this was all fixed up by the conference of Law Ministers of the Commonwealth, and that it is our duty only to put the imprimatur of our approval on what is a chose jugée. That is not the sort of legislation I care for. It seems to me that it is the business of the House to judge without prejudice the proposals brought before us, because we are changing the law of England and Scotland. It is our trust to see that that law is in the best possible shape, and nobody can take that trusteeship away from us on the grounds that they have already committed us.
We are not doing the good day's work I had hoped. Although the law needs

change, at least in the respects which I have mentioned, the Bill is not changing it for the right, whereas in the respects where I think that it needs thought and change, namely, on the whole basis of extradition for political offences, there is a glaring omission.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I share the doubts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) as to the complete appropriateness of the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1870, to the conditions of the modern world and our place in it. That Act was passed not long after the middle of the 19th century at a time when this country was proud and glad to give refuge to the many people who were fighting for the freedom of their countries and their own personal freedom throughout Europe and the world. One does not have to go back far beyond 1870 to think of the struggle for freedom in Italy and many other parts of the world, which were undoubtedly determining factors in the provisions of that Act with regard to political offences.
The question of how appropriate those provisions are in these days has been underlined by my hon. and learned Friend. We must ask ourselves whether for instance, save in very exceptional circumstances, murder or assassination can any longer be regarded as a legitimate political weapon. Under the provisions of the Extradition Act, there is no doubt that if a man can show that the murder or assassination he committed was for political motives, he comes within that Act. We might indeed have been in a very grave dilemma if Lee Harvey Oswald has sought refuge here. We may in the future be in very grave political dilemmas if other people who have committed assassinations and murders find refuge here and claim the protection of political motives for their deeds.
I say that by way of preface, because I nevertheless share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and his respect for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). For many years I have thought that there was a case for equating the treatment of Commonwealth citizens and aliens, and the treatment of foreign countries and Commonwealth countries in


this respect. I have looked forward to a Bill which would provide that Commonwealth citizens fighting for freedom in their own countries would not necessarily be sent back, as has hitherto been necessary under the prevailing legislation, and that they should have the same protection as aliens. To that extent, along with every speaker this afternoon, I am with the Bill.
But the Bill goes much further. It puts Commonwealth countries, with whom on a priori grounds one might have assumed that our relations of comity are even more friendly and closer than the relations between this country and foreign countries, in a more difficult position in obtaining the return of citizens who have been guilty of offences. That was underlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen in referring to Clause 4. He emphasised not only the political difficulties of applying Clause 4(1,b) but the extraordinary legal dfficulties.
In the ordinary administration of the law, the magistrates' courts of this country already face great difficulties, and they acquit themselves very well. But it is an intolerable burden to face a magistrate, even a learned Metropolitan magistrate, with the problem of deciding whether a request by a foreign power for the return of somebody accused of an ordinary crime—not a political crime—is bona fide. It is difficult to see how that burden could possibly be discharged. It would involve long hearings, historical inquiries, calling numerous witnesses, because presumably the person whose return was sought would be entitled to call witnesses to show that the basest motives were behind the request for his return. As my hon. and learned Friend said, that would run clean contrary to the principles which this country has hitherto applied in its relationships with foreign countries. It would run clean contrary to the passage which my hon. and learned Friend read out from the judgment of Lord Russell of Killowen in the case of Arton.
Who can doubt that the principle was properly enunciated by Lord Russell of Killowen, and that it is a proper principle to apply in this country's relations with others? I am thinking not only of other countries of the world but other countries of the Commonwealth, with

whom I hope we shall continue to have a special relationship, and not just the relationship that there is between foreign powers, however friendly they are with one another. For those reasons, Clause 4(1,b) would be much better left out of the Bill, so far as the courts are concerned.
There are also the political reasons why it should be left out, to which many hon. Members have referred today. It is difficult to imagine a more potent cause of future dissension between the countries of the Commonwealth than to make a provision whereby the courts of this country, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, are entitled to say, "You say that you want Mr. X for stealing £30,000. We do not accept that. We believe that you want to put him to death because you do not like his religious persuasion, or because you do not like the acts in which he has engaged on behalf of his political party at home."
These provisions in the Bill, it seems to me, far from being a means of cementing the relationships between the countries of the Commonwealth, far from being a means of increasing the comity and the friendship that we all desire, are likely to be a future cause of the gravest possible discord.
I have nearly said all I desire to say about the Bill although I could say a great deal more. I shall only repeat what other hon. Members have said about Clause 9. This concerns a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in referring to subsection (4), which provides that
The Secretary of State may decide to make no order under this section
an order for return—
in the case of a person accused or convicted of a relevant offence not punishable with death in Great Britain…
if he may be punished with death at home. If the Home Secretary were to act on that ground, we would run into the gravest possible danger of having murderers from all over the world who may be sentenced to death at home taking refuge here.
One must bear in mind in that connection that the death penalty still prevails in many of the most civilised of


what is sometimes called the old Commonwealth—in some Australian States, for instance. For these reasons also, I invite the Government to reconsider the Bill and in particular Clauses 4 and 9.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I share some of the disquiet expressed about the Bill, although I have some reservations about some of the criticisms made. Basically I believe that the Government's approach is right in that it is essential to try to get agreement throughout the Commonwealth about the kind of law we need for extradition within the Commonwealth. But I start off from the basic premise that there are no political reasons, although there may be legal reasons, why a Commonwealth citizen should be in any different position from the citizen of another country when he comes here.
I believe that the Extradition Act, 1870, was an extremely fine and civilised Measure. I have heard doubts expressed about it today, but I would need much persuasion before I would see it repealed or see it greatly modified, although some degree of modification may be required in the light of modern conditions.

Sir J. Hobson: But surely this concerns not so much the person demanded for return but the identity of the Government demanding his return. A foreign Government could demand the return of a Commonwealth citizen who would then be in the same position as an alien.

Mr. Hooson: I accept that. It seems to me that what we want to do is to preserve the essential freedom for a man to come here whom we think should not be returned to another country to his political prejudice, where he will be put on trial, often unfairly, for a political offence. I do not think that the world has reached such a civilised state that we could be happy that a man coming here from a Commonwealth or any other country might, if he is returned to that country, necessarily get justice. He might find himself suffering from a complete injustice in that he does not get a fair crack of the whip at his trial and is not allowed freedom of political expression. That I understand to be the basic aim of the Government in presenting the Bill and it is a perfectly correct

aim retaining a right of political sanctuary.
Secondly, it is also sensible for the legal Ministers of the Commonwealth to get together to try to thrash out a common code. I accept that. Thirdly, there are the wider grounds for refusing extradition, and the 1870 Act might itself be widened in that respect. Where the Government have gone wrong, and it may be possible to put this right if there is an agreement between all the Commonwealth legal Ministers, is under Clause 4 in particular. I perfectly well understand that a competent court here can decide whether the offence of which a person is accused is an offence of a political character, but when we come to Clause 4(1,b), we see that the court has to decide
that the request for his return (though purporting to be made on account of a relevant offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion:
How can a court decide that? What is the standard of proof which has to be applied? Is it proof beyond reasonable doubt? Is it a suspicion that this might be the case? None of these questions are answered by the Bill. This subsection will put an intolerable burden on the courts. This is not the kind of function which a court can properly fulfil. This requirement is for a political decision and it should properly be taken at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The requirement in Clause 4(1,c) is
that he might, if returned, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions.
Again this necessitates an inquiry by the court in this country about the way in which people are dealt with of a certain race, religion, nationality or political opinion in a Commonwealth country. This is embarking on a very novel kind of investigation for our courts and is what the judges should not be called upon to decide.
The probable reason for Clause 4 (1,b) and (c) is that it may be said that the opinions of the Home Secretary vary according to the character and political beliefs of the particular Home Secretary and that therefore a person who has sought refuge here should be allowed two cracks of the whip from both the Home


Secretary and the courts. Let us bring it a little nearer home. Chief Enahoro's case, it has been argued, should have depended not only on the Home Secretary of the day. He should have been allowed recourse to the courts on the grounds allowed in this Clause. I understand this to be the purpose of the Clause. I am not at all happy about the solution to this problem, although at the moment I find it difficult to think of an alternative. But I think it is placing the courts in a very difficult position. This matter must be thought out again and I ask whether the views of the Lord Chief Justice have been sought, because it is important that they should be when such a fundamental change in our law is proposed.
The other valid criticism which needs answering was also expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone when he dealt with the difference which appears to him between the foreigner for whom extradition is refused but who can he requested to leave the country or be deported and that of a Commonwealth citizen whose extradition may be refused and where there is apparently no other means of dealing with him even if he is of highly undesirable character. Presumably—and I am not an authority on this subject—under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act there may be some means of dealing with him, but it is incumbent upon the Government to deal with this point in the reply tonight. It is a valid criticism and should be looked into. Otherwise, I agree entirely with the purpose of the Bill, provided that the provisions I have mentioned are looked at very carefully again before it becomes law.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I was about to interrupt the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) at an earlier point, but I am glad to follow him now because I wanted to question the point he was making—that there is not really any need for any difference between the extradition law as it relates to Commonwealth countries and as it relates to foreign countries.

Mr. Hooson: I made it clear that there were no political reasons. I think there are legal reasons, but there are no political reasons.

Mr. Iremonger: I am not quite sure whether there is a clear distinction there on the point that I want to make. I was very impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said in a speech while the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was not present, when he analysed this difference as consisting of the duty of allegiance existing between subjects of the Crown, whether in Commonwealth countries or this country, and the absence of that duty of allegiance in all foreigners.
The hon. and learned Member may feel that so long as the Commonwealth existed in its old form that was a substantial reason for the difference between the Fugitive Offenders Act and the extradition laws between ourselves and foreign countries. That is a comparatively incidental point, but I would agree with the hon. and learned Member and those who have spoken from this side of the House. Incidentally, it is interesting to see, after all the "brouhaha" about Enahoro by the party opposite and their interest in this attempt to remedy the law, that no hon. Members opposite have come in to justify the Measure which the Government have brought forward, to explain how necessary it was because of the wrong decision made by the Conservative Home Secretary. I do not think that it is a wrong decision, but they have not appeared. They have totally lost interest and left it to their Government to defend this singularly inept and ill-conceived Bill.
Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the main nub of the argument, the discretions under Clause 4. What we are concerned about—and it is disgraceful that no one should be concerned about this on the other side of the House, apart from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)—is that these discretions are to be in the hands of either the courts, the High Court and the magistrates' courts, or the Home Secretary, or both. What strikes me is that this objectionable feature in the Bill is quite unnecessary. We are informed that the Bill is based upon the recommendations made by the conference of Law Ministers of the Commonwealth which met last April. That is all very fine and dandy, but if my information


and recollection are correct what the conference said in Section 9 paragraph 6 of their scheme was:
It will be sufficient compliance with any one
of certain paragraphs which discuss the discretions recommended as embodied in Clauses 4 and 8,
…if a country decides"—
and we are now making that decision—
that the competent authority for the purpose of that paragraph is exclusively the judicial authority or the executive authority.
What we ought to hear from the Government is why this peculiar decision to confuse the functions of the Executive and the judicial authority was made.
Why have the courts been drawn into this singularly invidious question. It seems that, so far as there should be a discretion on these matters of opinion and judgment, they are matters which are preeminently not matters to be decided in a court of law, which has firstly to decide whether the law of Parliament is to be interpreted this way or that, and secondly, whether the facts before the court are proved under that law. A court is concerned with law and with facts. Clause 4 is concerned with judgment, opinion, rumour, suspicion, accusation and political motive. Those are matters not coming within the jurisdiction of any court, quite properly, in any civilised country, and the extraordinary precedent being created is one which I should have thought would have been regarded with equal horror in every Commonwealth country as well as here.
It is a pretty sad prospect to see that, with the honourable exception of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill, no one on that side of the House seems to think that this fundamental principle of the rule of the law ought not to be violated in the Bill. I do not see how the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State can commend this as a principle which we ought to uphold. He has already breached the rule of law in defending his Order the other day when it was pointed out that the Order was saying "What we say goes, whether or not it is right". I do not see how he, as "one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law", can now take this course. How can he

possibly get round the principle laid down in 1896 by Lord Russell of Killowen in the case of Arton, whom it was sought to extradite? Lord Russell said that the motive behind the attempt to extradite Arton was political, and he refused to enter into the whole matter. He said that this in the first place called into question the integrity of the institutions of a friendly state, but in any case it was something which no court of law could possibly decide and that there were matters which must be decided where they belonged, in the political sphere.
It is bad enough for the Government to put this odious onus upon the High Court, but they have also imposed it upon magistrates' courts. We talk deferentially about the Bow Street magistrate and the learned stipendiary, but such a case could go to any magistrate in the remotest corners—I will not say in Scotland or Wales, because I am sure that they would be admirably up to task there—but in the remotest corners of my own county of Essex. I am sure that there would be no one on the bench there who would not deal with it as well as it could be dealt with, but it is an impossibility.
It is surely putting a terrible task upon magistrates in a small English country court to have to decide whether the political parties in Ghana, Tanzania, or Malawi are really secretly applying to commit judicial murder against a political opponent and are thereby accusing him of having embezzled accounts in the country. It is a matter not only beyond the proper jurisdiction of the court but beyond its possible competence to inquire into. I cannot help agreeing with my hon. and learned Friends who say that this Bill will make the country and our courts the cockpit of parties in the emerging Commonwealth where their politics and their law are unfortunately interwoven in a way that they have not been interwoven in this country for almost 500 years.
I cannot understand the political principle behind the Government's introduction of this. Did they have no influence upon the Law Ministers of the Commonwealth when they met to discuss this? Without being patronising, they might have explained the distinction between political action in the courts of law. They ought surely to have explained that the function of extradition was to prevent foreigners from defying the law of their own country and seeking refuge in


another. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with political animosities which might develop and be translated into bogus legal charges.
I thought that the Enahoro decision was absolutely right. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend, who took a large measure of responsibility and of the odium for that, will agree that the principle which guided the Conservative Home Secretary at the time was that a Commonwealth country, with properly constituted courts, was competent to try a case which prima facie had no political overtones, and therefore it would have been highly wrong to have looked into the political aspects, if there were any, and to have refused extradition.
Equally, the Home Secretary was wrong not to allow Mr. Kwesi Armah to be extradited. I cannot help reflecting—possibly this is terribly unjust, but it is an unjust world—that it is a curious thing that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted Enahoro sent back but they did not want Armah sent back. I cannot help feeling that their judicial judgment in that case was somewhat influenced by the fact that they saw Enahoro as a figure basically opposed to a friendly, sound and, one might say, Conservative, African Government in Nigeria, and they see Armah as the friend of the Socialist emperor dethroned, and as one who would then be at the mercy of those who had dethroned him and who are far from the Left-wing Messiahs which the party opposite always like to see emerge.

Mr. Hooson: I rise to raise a factual point. It is my understanding that the Labour Party was much opposed to Enahoro being sent back.

Mr. Iremonger: Exactly. I think we were right to send him back, and the party opposite were wrong to oppose it. They are wrong to have refused to send Armah back. It seems a funny thing, that hon. Members opposite always protect opponents of African Governments which broadly seem to be in favour of maintaining the British Commonwealth, as opposed to the emergent African organisations.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: What I understood my hon. Friend to say was that the Opposition were at the

time in favour of Enahoro being sent back, but were opposed to Armah going back. I think it is quite obvious that my hon. Friend did not mean that. I point it out so that he may correct his own record.

Mr. Iremonger: I am most obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to correct my record. I leave it to him. I am most grateful to him for having done so. He has obviously taken my point better than I had myself.
We on this side of the House have expressed misgivings about the Bill, which should never have been promoted. The misgivings are entirely due to a lack of judgment on the part of the Government in allowing the Law Ministers' Conference to take the shape that it did. These recommendations should have been strangled at birth. To have introduced them into this legislative monstrosity is a terrible dereliction of their duty.
I hope the House will not allow the Bill to go through. If it does go through, then I hope that the Government will take note in Committee of the misgivings which have been expressed, and that the anomaly in Clause 4 of putting into the jurisdiction of the courts matters which are essentially matters of political judgment, will be corrected, and that we shall not start down the slippery slope of enacting laws based on the ill-conceived prejudice of inexperienced Commonwealth members.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I regret that I was not in the House to hear the opening speeches on the Bill. I was engaged elsewhere. However, I have come here now to say a few critical things about the Bill.
It is intended at a later date to extend its provisions to the Republic of Ireland. My recollection is that it was not so long ago that we had a Bill providing for the mutual backing of warrants between the Republic of Ireland and this country.
I should like to refer to the first prominent explanatory memorandum in the Bill and to ask why it is necessary to have this extradition procedure between the Republic of Ireland and this country when we already have this mutual backing of warrants already arranged? I say that by way of introduction. My second point is


that I well remember not so long ago when this House was seething with views expressed on the return of Chief Enahoro, views expressed on the rights and wrongs of the case. It would be wrong for me to go into them now, and I do not propose to be out of order by doing so.
The Conservative Home Secretary of the day took, according to the law of the day, the only course that was open to him under all the circumstances, but when the Socialist Opposition of the day sat on these benches the noise was almost deafening. The Speaker of the day had difficulty in maintaining order. Yet as a consequence of that, who from the party opposite is now in the Chamber to express his approval of what the change of Government has brought about? Apart from one hon. Member opposite, who recently entered the Chamber, there is no one on the back benches to express his approval of the change in the law. Therefore, one is tempted to say that perhaps their anger in the Enahoro case was a little feigned.
I wish, like other hon. Members, to refer to Clause 4. I cannot imagine how the Law Ministers could have come to these conclusions. The conference was insufficiently publicised. One does not know who was there. The conference took decisions which were binding on this House, and we are told that it would be wrong for the House to do anything but accept the Bill as it stands and we should let it go through by mutual Commonwealth agreement. That is not exactly what the House always likes.
There are reasons as set out in Clause 4 why Commonwealth citizens cannot be returned to their own country. Those to whom this applies, and to which I shall refer in greater detail in a moment, is a matter which has, firstly, to be decided by the Secretary of State. The Clause does not say in what Order these decisions should be made. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the Home Secretary makes the decision, and, if the decision is against the person who has been arrested and who is about to be returned, there is a kind of appeal from the Home Secretary to the High Court, although probably the court of committal is, in the meantime, considering the matter. I say that because one knows how this kind of machinery works. There is nothing in the Bill providing for it. During the

proceedings of the court of committal, the Home Secretary could say, "I have decided under Clause 4 that you, the stipendiary magistrate, or bench of magistrates, must now proceed to release this man because I have made a decision under Clause 4." That is bad drafting, because we do not know in what Order the matters will come.
In Clause 4(1,a) there is reference to an offence, for which a person is accused and convicted, "of a political character". It may be that in the last century this country received, either rightly or wrongly—only historians can decide—a number of what used to be called "political refugees". That meant people who were plotting against the Government of their own country. But my hon. Friends and I are plotting every day for the overthrow of the present Government, and one day we hope to be successful—but are we to be extradited from foreign countries because two or three of us were perhaps meeting abroad to plan the next move? This is ridiculous. Suppose that somebody commits one of the offences set out in Schedule 1. Is that the type of person to whom reference is made by the phrase "political offenders "?
If we look at Schedule 1, and remembering that attempts are included in the offences, what offences will be judged to be political offences? Take the offence of maliciously or wilfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. If that is committed against a politician in a Commonwealth country with whose political views one disagrees so strongly that one resorts to the use of firearms or a knife, can one say, "I did shoot him, I did hit him, but since I disagree with him politically and have been active in my political disagreement with him in my country this is a political offence and therefore I demand the right to remain in this country and to join other political assassins who have found refuge here"?
Suppose that I were to marry the wife of the Prime Minister in another country and that that amounted to bigamy. Would that be a political offence? Under Schedule 1 there are ridiculous cases in which it may be alleged that the offence was political. Suppose someone steals £30,000 in another country and brings it into this country and it is said that it was a political offence because he proposed


to maintain people of his own political beliefs while they are over here and arrange for their sustenance. One sees the ridiculous questions which will be before the Home Secretary which he will have to decide before the matter even gets to the courts.
How will the Home Secretary decide them? He will have before him only the statements of the accused person, although he can ask the country concerned to send as much information as possible. The courts will be in the same position. The judges will be in an impossible position. They will have to hear evidence about the political conditions in every country and about the political activities or inactivities of an accused person and then perhaps decide that the political nature of the offence against the Government concerned was so laudable that the person must not be extradited. I think that the judges would, and must, refuse to decide such matters and will say, "This is a political question and it must be left to the political Home Secretary".
Clause 4(1,b) provides that a person shall not be returned
for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
We know that in Nigeria the other day there was serious trouble between the different races. No doubt people took an active part in suppressing or activating those racial troubles. If their side happened to be losing, no doubt they would come to this country on the grounds of safety. In such circumstances, would there be a long hearing in this country with the presentation of evidence about the history and facts of the racial differences and of what happened when the dispute—I use the word in its physical sense—broke out. Would people who came here and who were charged with an offence of violence in that country be able to say that it was to pay off an old personal score and was of a political character?
I ask the Government to look at this and to consider what they are asking to be done not only in this country, but in Commonwealth countries, because the same thing will happen in reverse. If we apply for the extradition of somebody from

the Commonwealth and the accused person says, "My offence is of a political character. I am a well known Conservative in my country and we have a Socialist Government", then that Commonwealth country will be able to inquire into the political situation in this country and decide that the return of the person here would be for the purpose of prosecuting him or punishing him on account of his political opinions.
I do not think that the people of this country will appreciate that very much. They will be told that Parliament passed a law giving power to do this after a conference of law Ministers. It will be asked, "What are you complaining about?"
Clause 4(3) also provides—I am paraphrasing it—that a person, after his return for one offence, shall not be charged with another offence unless it is a lesser offence or the Secretary of State consents to his so being dealt with unless he is offered the chance of returning to this country. Take, not an offence of a political nature, but a big fraud case. Suppose that extradition is requested on a charge of embezzling £5,000, that the evidence is substantial and that extradition is ordered. He may find when he gets back that after the accountants have looked fully into the matter there are ten other charges of embezzlement laid against him. Perhaps the evidence on the other counts may be stronger. The country is prohibited from extraditing him except with the consent of the Secretary of State unless it gives him the opportunity of returning to this country.
These are important matters. Drafted as they are in a Bill like this, or when they form part of a speech by a Minister or a back bench Member—we are remarkably short of them on the benches opposite today—they may seem all right. but when they are worked out in practice the people who have to apply them will be in an almost impossible position. If they decide in favour of the accused person, they will find themselves the cause of very strong feelings in the country applying for extradition. I advise the Government to look very carefully into these matters before they pass the Bill.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I, too, apologise for not being here during


the Front Bench speeches. Unfortunately, I was engaged elsewhere, but I have listened with great interest to what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friends. I agree with them that difficulties are bound to arise in administering the Bill. It may create difficulties such as were encountered in the Enahoro case and other cases.
I am particularly concerned about offences which could fall within "relevant offences" but which were offences of espionage or treason. Among the offences under item No. 18 in Schedule I is stealing. These days many atomic secret plans and such things are stolen. There could well be a political implication behind stealing. A Canadian, for instance, who was motivated politically—because politics cross boundaries these days—may steal State secrets from the Government and then come to this country and extradition may be demanded.
In such a case the Queen of Canada, through her Government, would be demanding from the Queen of the United Kingdom the return of somebody who had, perhaps, committed a treasonable offence, or certainly a political offence, against herself as Queen of Canada. This could cause grave embarrassment to the British Government and the British people. It seems almost inconceivable in the present circumstances that such a man, whose offence may have been political, would not be returned even though it were a political offence. Dangers such as this can arise and difficult decisions will have to be made by future Home Secretaries.
Clause 4 has agitated several of my hon. Friends and I am equally agitated by its provisions, especially in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1). A solicitor looks on this rather differently from a member of the Bar, because he has to prepare a case; he is the one who has to go out and get the evidence. Solicitors will know that courts act only upon evidence. Solicitors will have an enormous task in producing this evidence to a Court.
As has already been said, when a court has to decide upon that evidence it will be put in the position of criticising courts in the rest of the Commonwealth, which it will fin I most distasteful and on which it will find it almost impossible to reach a true answer. My hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that these cases could last a long time. Indeed, they would have to last a long time if the facts that were necessary to come within the provisions of the Bill were to be established before a judicial body. I see great practical difficulties ahead.
I do not intend to detain the House long on this matter, but one part of Clause 4(1) in paragraphs (b) and (c) slightly worries me. This may be a Committee point, but I may not have another chance of making it. I refer to the colour of a man's skin. Paragraphs (b) and (c) use the words
race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
Does that include colour? There could be difficulties here. Kenya, for example, like other African States, is trying to build a society in which a man is not a white or a black Kenyan but is a Kenyan. When a man is asked what is his race, he replies, "Kenyan". Equally, in this country there are many people of Pakistani or West Indian origin who were born in this country, and I hope that in future we will look upon their race as British.
This matter might well be examined to see whether the word "colour" should be included, because I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would not want a man to be extradited if because of the colour of his skin he could not get a fair trial; and there might be legal argument about the exact meaning of "race". I am certain that in this country there are many Huguenots, or, indeed, Jewish refugees, who would look upon themselves and their race as British. I therefore ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to help us on this point and, if there is substance in it, to bear it in mind.
I repeat that the Bill is likely to cause as many difficulties as it attempts to settle. If the Home Secretary lets it go through in its present form, before his term of office expires he may well be confronted with some delicate and dangerous situations.

6.54 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I have the advantage of having heard the Home Secretary present his Bill to the House and my right hon. and learned Friend


the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in an able and remarkably cogent speech, cast a lot of doubt, even in the Home Secretary's mind, about the wisdom of introducing the Bill. I do not go as far as many of my hon. Friends in saying that we should vote against the Bill because I appreciate, like my right hon. and learned Friend, that after a Commonwealth Conference, politically the Opposition's powers of manoeuvre are strictly limited.
It is, however, a strange change in the Socialist Party that when they were in Opposition they were full of the defence of the rights of the individual, defence of the rights of minorities, and protection against the aggressive Executive for the person who suffered injustice, but that now, when they are in power, they show remarkably little enthusiasm for that task. It is a disgrace that a Bill which is connected with this matter today has drawn so little response from members of the party opposite.
A minor but important aspect of the Bill is its Title. The Bill is called the Fugitive Offenders Bill. In presenting it to the House, the Home Secretary said that the Australian Parliament had already enacted a Bill in similar terms. I thought, however, that the Australian Parliament showed a great deal more sense because, while I cannot remember the exact wording, the Bill in Australia was an Extradition Bill.
There is something rather strange when one considers so-called political fugitives today who very often have a suite at Claridge's but are looked upon as fugitives. The word "fugitive" connotes somebody who is hidden away secretly and in fear of all the population. I therefore ask the Home Secretary whether it is not too late to give the Bill a different Title than that with which he has presented it to the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could amend it in Committee. The Bill would be much more realistic if it had a different Title and talked much more about extradition.
I accept that the Under-Secretary of State attended the Commonwealth Law Officers' Conference. I hate to say so, but I feel compelled to suggest that he may have fought a very strong losing battle. I hope that when he replies to

the debate tonight, he will tell the House whether that was the case, If, however, he did not fight a strong losing battle, if he accepts all the conclusions of that Commonwealth Conference, I cannot congratulate him on his efforts on behalf of justice. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone pointed out in his very able speech, there are an enormous number of dangers and difficulties in the Bill.
I should like to know from the Under-Secretary why the Commonwealth Conference did not virtually take on the Act of 1870—not of 1881—which, as far as I can make out, has for nearly 100 years worked with very little controversy across the Floor of the House. Commonwealth countries are just as independent of this Parliament and are in no different position from nations like France, Italy or Holland. They are entirely independent. If the 1870 Act, which dealt with equal States, has worked perfectly satisfactorily, why is it necessary, when altering the law to deal with the Commonwealth, to bring in a Bill which has so many disadvantages compared with the 1870 Act?
I hope that we shall get a satisfactory answer tonight to the point put by my right hon. and learned Friend concerning the question of murder. Suppose that there is a prima facie case alleging that someone at present in this country has committed a revolting murder in his own country and has a long history of violence. As I understand it, the Home Secretary will not grant extradition, because in that person's country, the death penalty is still operative whereas in this country we have, wisely or unwisely, done away with it. It may be a strong prima facie case of sexual murder, or it may involve all sorts of horrible crimes. Yet that person will not be extradited but will remain a free person in this country, perhaps able to carry out exactly the same crime or crimes that he is said to have committed in his own country. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) intervenes from a sedentary position, but I will answer him. The point is that the person about whom we are talking has, prima facie, committed a murder, and his own country wants him extradited so that he can be tried for murder, which still carries the death penalty in his


country. That is the only reason why the Home Secretary refuses to grant extradition—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I, first of all, apologise to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) for making an intervention, not having asked him to give way? I was really making a comment to myself and had not intended it to be overheard. However, since it has been overheard and replied to, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if there is not something unreasonable in the proposition that, if we would not execute a man for an offence committed in this country, we should extradite him to another country in order that something which we would not do ourselves might be done somewhere else?

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman has not got the point. If the man was charged and tried in this country, he would probably be sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. He would not be allowed to go round the highways and byways of the country repeating the crime for which his own country wished him to be extradited. In any case, at the time when the request for extradition is received, no one can say whether he will be found guilty in his own country. It may be that the court which tries him will find him guilty. It may be that it will find him guilty, but of diminished responsibility. We have no surety in our minds that, if we grant extradition, the man will be executed. All we know is that in a Commonwealth country, he would suffer the penalty imposed by a court of law which we consider to be paramount with our own and by a judicial system with all the knowledge of and based on our own long historical development of the law. He would suffer the penalty that the judges in that country thought that he should suffer.
Under the Bill, the Home Secretary would not grant extradition to a Commonwealth country which still had the death penalty. It might be only vestigial. In Australia at the moment there is a case which is causing a great deal of public concern. Australia has the death penalty, but 95 per cent. of people found guilty of murder are sent to prison. The probability is that, if the case which we are citing were tried in an Australian

court, it would result in only a prison sentence. However, because the death penalty is still operative in Australia, as I understand it, the Home Secretary would not grant extradition.

Mr. Stanley Orme: May I remind the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) that certain States in Australia do not have the death penalty? The State in which the recent execution has taken place is one where it is still operative. The position might arise of deciding whether to extradite one man to an Australian State where he might be executed and another man to a State where he would not be. That is the dilemma in which the Home Secretary might be placed.

Sir D. Glover: That makes the Home Secretary's position even more delicate. If the man comes from a State in Australia where they do not have the death penalty, he will grant extradition. If the man comes from another State where they have retained the death penalty, he will not be extradited and tried. It must not be forgotten that, in the case of Australia, we deal with the Federal Government and not with State Parliaments. How in logic could the Home Secretary justify his decision to the Federal Government in Canberra? Would it not appear as though we were prejudging the issue before it was ever brought to a court of law? My right hon. and learned Friend made an overwhelmingly powerful case that that is not the sort of reason on which we could refuse extradition.
I hesitate to intervene in this debate because I am not a lawyer, and this seems to have been a lawyers' paradise. It must be a long time since so many "silks" have spoken in one debate in such a short time without pay.
Having read the Bill and listened to the speeches, it seems to me there is a great danger of a division of opinion growing up between the Executive and the law, and it is a division which is not necessary. What it comes down to is that it would be far better even now for the Home Secretary to say, having heard few speeches in support of the Bill, that the Committee stage should be delayed. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we should not divide against it, but the Committee stage should be


delayed so that the Commonwealth Conference can be reconvened to reconsider the whole matter. The alternative is to make the law affecting the Commonwealth even more difficult than it is at the moment.
Let us consider Schedule 1. The first of the "relevant offences" is "Murder of any degree". I have referred to that already. Then one sees,
An offence against the law relating to abortion.
The question which springs to one's mind immediately is which law. At the moment, we are dealing with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. In reaching a decision, will the Home Secretary consider whether the accused person has committed an offence against our present law, against the law as it may be in three months' time, or against the law of the country concerned? Again, the term "abortion" is a very wide one. What is abortion? The Home Secretary will be obliged to make a political decision.
Another of the relevant offences is,
Unlawful sexual intercourse with a female.
In this country, it is unlawful to have sexual intercourse with a female who is below a certain age. However, in a lot of Commonwealth countries, people reach physical maturity at a much earlier age, and what would be rape in this country would be normal sexual intercourse there. On which basis will the Home Secretary work—the law of this country or the law of the country requesting extradition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now coming to points which might best be dealt with in Committee.

Sir D. Glover: With great respect, Sir, we are debating the Second Reading of the Bill. The whole basis of these points is whether the whole matter should not be taken back to another Commonwealth Conference before the Bill is proceeded further with. It is from that point of view that I raise these points. I therefore hope that I shall have the support of the Chair.
Take bigamy. Will the Home Secretary reach a decision on the basis of the law as it is here or as it is in the country concerned? Many Common-

wealth countries have a majority of Islamic people, who are entitled to four wives. What is bigamy?
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will not go into any more detail, except to cite the offence of counterfeiting currency. There has been a recent case concerning Rhodesia, which admittedly is a very special case, because at the moment Rhodesia is outwith the law. It has been held by the German courts that the currency in question is perfectly legal.Therefore, what is counterfeiting?
There is a well-tried system which has worked for 97 years and on which we have based our dealings with ordinary sovereign States. Nearly all the Commonwealth countries have now become sovereign States. Surely when we are altering the law we should be altering it so as to bring it into line with the procedure that we have for our dealings with other sovereign States and should not, at this late stage, be bringing in a separate procedure for the Commonwealth. If we were debating a Bill to the effect that the provisions of the 1870 Act were to be applicable in future to the Commonwealth, nearly all the criticism the Home Secretary has heard today would not have been expressed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary will have a very sticky time of it in winding up. He will have to try to justify his activities at the Commonwealth Conference which produced this abortion of a Bill, a Bill which will produce more anomalies than it will clear up, a Bill which will make the Home Secretary's job more difficult than it was—it was difficult enough before—and a Bill which will produce far more Enahoro-type and Kwesi Armahtype cases. The Home Secretary will in future be making more political decisions than he has done in the past.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who attended the Conference, will have to try to justify the Bill, not on the basis that he was out-voted or out-discussed, but on the basis that he thinks that what we are doing will produce an improvement and will be better than anything we have had in the past. Surely all that the Conference needed to discuss was whether the countries concerned would like to bring the Commonwealth into


line with the 1870 Act, which applies to the vast majority of our dealings with the extradition of political offenders and criminal offenders and which works with such smoothness that in my 14 years in the House I do not think that I can remember a debate which aroused any heat when it was a question of an alien being deported either for some criminal offence or even for a political offence, because that is a far more sensible system than that which we are now trying to foist upon ourselves as a result, I am sorry to say, of the weakness of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who represented this country in Canberra last year.
I do not think it is too late. Nobody wants to start a political storm on this. This is a Bill which could be left lying on the Table after its Second Reading whilst the Government called another conference to try to get adopted the system of the 19th century. Then, having achieved that agreement, the Government could put the Bill into Committee and alter it so that it fell in with those requirements. If the Home Secretary were able to do that, he would be doing a very much better job than we shall achieve if the Bill becomes law.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is one point which I do not think has been mentioned. I am sorry if to some extent I have been shuffling between here and another place, where the Torbay Order, which closely affects my constituency is under consideration. I do not notice in Schedule 1 any mention of the offence of espionage. Under Clause 4, this must be the most serious single offence, short of political assassination, which has a political element in it; but it does not appear in Schedule 1.
What is the position of a fugitive in this country from a Commonwealth country who is guilty, or prima facie guilty of espionage in that Commonwealth country? This question has taxed us before now. There was the case of Mr. Sobelivicius—I think that at the time he was calling himself Dr. Soblen—a man who did not have American nationality thrust on him. He sought it as a privilege by naturalisation and took on obligations as well as privileges by so doing. He then came to this country as a fugitive from the justice of the

country whose nationality he had voluntarily sought.
I should very much dislike being party to passing a Measure which made this country a resort for fugitive spies from Commonwealth countries. This is a particular source of worry to me because, having listened to the Home Secretary, I am still not clear how, under Clause 4, the political element will be determined. Nobody could contend that the offence of espionage was innocent of any political content. Unless it is entirely due to blackmail or bribery, it is generally the political element which is, if not dominant, at any rate present to a major degree.
I can foresee the Home Secretary being faced with the very difficult problem, if he is saddled with the Bill as drafted, of what to do with a fugitive spy from a Commonwealth country. All that the fugitive will have to do will be to say, "I was acting from political motives", and then plead that he has the right to remain here as a fugitive from the justice of his own country. This country has had quite enough espionage cases to bring it home to all of us that this is not a theoretical consideration. We must live with it, and we can expect to have to live with it for a long time. Canada has also had major cases of this kind.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not numbered among the three supporters of the Government who think it right to be present in the House at this moment to give advice to the Under-Secretary. However, there is one Government supporter on the back benches, so perhaps he could be sent to get advice on this point. I, for one, should be extremely sorry if, as a possibly unintentional result of the Bill, the United Kingdom or, under Clause 16, the Isle of Man—the Isle of Man would be much more attractive because Income Tax rates are much lower there—were to become the resort of people who were being chased by the counter-espionage services of Commonwealth countries. Espionage is, after all, par excellence the offence in respect of which the prosecuting authorities do not immediately pounce. It is not like murder, or burglary, where, as soon as they are reasonably sure that somebody is suspect, they pounce. With espionage there are particularly good reasons for holding back in the hope that the person


who is believed to be guilty will lead the investigating authorities to other persons in the ring. Therefore, it will be easier than would be the case in other offences for the person concerned to avail himself of the opportunity of escaping out of that country as long as he can find somewhere to which he may safely resort. Let the place to which people from Commonwealth countries who are guilty of espionage can safely resort not be the United Kingdom.

7.21 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: This has been a remarkable debate in many ways. It is plain to the House that the Bill has no friend except the Home Secretary, and no doubt it will have the Under-Secretary of State who is, I think, its putative father. Nobody else has spoken in favour of the Bill. Every speech that we have heard has been critical of it, and a great number of very important issues and difficulties have been raised in the course of our discussions.
It has also been a remarkable debate in that this is a subject which, when in opposition, the Labour Party regarded as of the utmost importance, and yet throughout this debate today we have had on the benches opposite nobody except the Home Secretary, his Under-Secretary, a Parliamentary Secretary, and the Whip on duty. Apart from an occasional look-in by one or two others, the benches opposite have been utterly and totally deserted.
It does not stop there. On a matter of this nature, which affects the interests of this country in so many different ways, during the whole of the debate we have not had, and are not to have, the assistance or advice of either of the Law Officers, nor have we had a representative from the Commonwealth Relations Office, apart from the Secretary of State himself who looked in at 7.10 and left at 7.11. I regret that a matter of this considerable importance and difficulty—because I think that this is a very difficult topic—should have been treated in this way by both the Government themselves, and by their supporters.
I was particularly glad that we have not had a debate exclusively confined to lawyers. I think that when discussing

difficult topics, particularly those of principle, even though they involve largely legal procedural matters, it is of great assistance to the House to have the views of right hon. and hon. Members who are not members of the legal profession. Today my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) have assisted the House by expressing their views and their anxieties.
I share very much the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I have very considerable doubts about many of the provisions, and indeed the fundamental principles, of the Bill, although I hope that I may be mistaken.
As has been said, it is plain that this Bill has come out of the Commonwealth Law Minister's conference in May of last year. To this extent it places the Opposition in considerable difficulty in voting against a Bill which has apparently received the approval of the Commonwealth Law Ministers, although I hope that it will place no inhibitions on either myself or any of my right hon. Friends in both criticising it today and perhaps trying to improve it in Committee.
I have never understood that countries of the Commonwealth—or other international countries—are bound by a scheme which is recommended for consideration by a conference of law officers. The foreword to the White Paper says:
The Meeting accordingly formulated a Scheme setting out principles which could form the basis of legislation within the Commonwealth and recommended that effect should be given to the Scheme in each Commonwealth country.
They were only making legislative recommendations. Has there, at Governmental level between the independent countries of the Commonwealth, been any agreement confirming that they intend, each and all of them, to implement the scheme which was formulated in Canberra? Furthermore, what is the position about Commonwealth countries who do not agree to implement the scheme? We were told that only one country so far, Australia, had legislated to implement the scheme. We have not been told that any other of the independent countries of the Commonwealth have approved, or adopted, or intend to adopt, this scheme.
What is the position throughout the Commonwealth? How many countries have signified their intention to adopt the scheme? How many, as the Home Secretary said, are awaiting our example to adopt a Measure which has gone through this House and are, therefore, reserving their position until they see what we do? How many, if any, have expressed distaste for this method of procedure and apparently do not, or seem likely not to, wish to adopt this scheme? I would be grateful if we could be told something about the situation which exists among other Commonwealth countries.
If we do pass this legislation, how do the Government envisage it operating? Presumably under Clause 2 they will designate such Commonwealth countries as have, first, passed legislation, and, secondly, are prepared to put the scheme into operation and make orders similar to our own. But from the moment this Bill becomes law the Fugitive Offenders Act will be repealed. What will happen about the return of prisoners in any transitional period between the passing into law of this Bill and the passage into law within another Commonwealth country of similar legislation?
What will happen if a Commonwealth country does not adopt legislation similar to this Bill? What will happen if it is unhappy with this scheme and either passes other legislation, or does not pass legislation to implement the Law Ministers' scheme? What will happen in the period after the Fugitive Offenders Act has been repealed? How will the Government of this country deal with requests from another country to return its prisoners? How will they endeavour with such countries to obtain the return of our fugitive criminals who have fled to those countries?
Clause 2(3) seems to be in a rather surprising form, in that it gives the Government of the day complete and absolute legislative discretion, by delegated legislation, to make any different scheme which they please in relation to any independent country of the Commonwealth. It may be that this will give the necessary elasticity. It may be that the chances of a general agreement are so remote that it is necessary to pass a general scheme and then give the Executive of this country power to make a different scheme to suit the needs of one or more of the indepen-

dent countries of the Commonwealth. Am I right in thinking that Clause 2(3) gives complete latitude to the Government, subject only to the Parliamentary negative procedure, to amend, alter, or adopt any scheme which they please, however different it may be either from this Bill or from the Extradition Act, 1870?
I think that the Home Secretary indicated something of the way in which he expected the Colonies to be dealt with. There is a double problem as between the Colonies themselves and between the Colonies and this country. Can any indication be given whether there will be two grades of Colony—one, perhaps, self-governing, with a legislature of its own, who will put this scheme into operation almost in its entirety, and the other, which does not have its own legislature, or is run more closely from Whitehall? What will be the difference in the two schemes? What sort of schemes are envisaged for Colonies which do not come within, or to whom there is not be be applied, the provisions of this Bill?
Since we must look at the variety of arrangements which have to be made. I want to raise the question of the Republic of Ireland, which has been referred to by my hon. Friends. As I understand it, the legislation operating between Eire and this country enables us, by the backing of warrants, to exchange prisoners in a way that has operated substantially since 1848, if not earlier.
Do the provisions for the return of prisoners between the Republic of Ireland and this country provide that a criminal who is alleged to have committed a crime of a political character cannot be returned, for instance, to Southern Ireland? Could a person who had committed a criminal offence of a political character in this country find refuge in Dublin and not be extradictable to this country? When considering relationships between this country and the rest of the Commonwealth it is also relevant to consider relationships between this country and a country which is not even a member of the Commonwealth.
As I understand the position, there is a free exchange of prisoners between this country and Southern Ireland, and no inhibitions to be found in Clauses 4 and 8 apply in respect of the exchange of those persons required to stand trial for offences


in this or that country. The provisions of Clause 17, which deals with the Republic of Southern Ireland, concern the relationship between the Colonies and dependencies of this country and the Republic of Ireland, and it was presumably with the agreement of the Republic of Ireland that we put the Colonies into the odd position of being able to have with Southern Ireland arrangements exactly similar to those which they would have with members of the Commonwealth, even though Southern Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth and even when this country cannot deal with it as a Commonwealth country but must exchange political prisoners with it.
How is the arrangement which is intended to operate between independent countries of the Commonwealth—and, if necessary, our Colonies and dependencies—to be applicable as between those dependencies and Southern Ireland when it is not applicable between this country and the Republic of Ireland? Those are some general background questions which I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary will consider this evening. I realise his difficulty in replying to questions at the end of a debate when he has many other questions to answer.
I now come to the principles which I feel ought to underlie a Measure of this nature. I find the situation much more difficult than many hon. Members seem to have done today. It is not sufficient to say that this country should treat the other independent countries of the Commonwealth exactly as if they were foreign countries. That is a wrong principle upon which to proceed, and to that extent I am sorry to disagree with several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In considering the topic of the return of persons for trial in the country where they have committed offences it is necessary to consider the philosophy and the history of this matter—and the way in which it has developed.
It has always been accepted as an important interest of civilised mankind that criminals who have fled from one country to another should be either delivered up for trial in the country of their crime or punished by the receiving State There have occasionally been exceptions, when it was thought sufficient for the receiving State to insist upon such fugitive

criminals quitting its shores. This principle has been generally recognised since the 17th century.
But since the time of the French Revolution, upon that general principle—with which probably nobody would disagree—there has been grafted another principle. France herself, at the time of the Revolution, was anxious to receive support from other opponents of existing authority, from wherever they might come. Since those days there has gradually grown up the principle, which has been applied by most countries, that there should be a right of political asylum for those who would otherwise suffer undeservedly.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) correctly stated the principle, namely, that it is to save people from suffering undeservedly that the right of political asylum has steadily been imported into international relations. For this country in the 19th century it was very easy to give effect to this principle, since England was then one of the most liberal countries in Europe and most of her neighbours were still suffering from despotism and authoritarian régimes. We were on the left of and more advanced than, any other country. It is very simple to say that one will grant political asylum to all refugees when they are pretty certain to be in conformity with one's views and to be attempting the same political objectives. We must also remember that in the 19th century travel was very difficult, and that the number of political refugees and distance they travelled were very small.
Asylum in respect of the commission of crimes of a political character in the modern age creates a very different problem. Travel by air all over the world is much easier, and the capacity to move is very much greater than it ever was before. In addition, England, at any rate, now finds herself—together with most other members of the Commonwealth—not to the left of other countries but in the centre. I hope that the Commonwealth and this country stand between the extremes of Fascism on the one hand and Communism on the other.
The political ethos of the Commonwealth depends upon a rejection of the extremes both of the right and of the left. To this extent, when we approach


the problem of political asylum we find ourselves in a situation very different from that which existed in the middle of the 19th century. It is difficult for us to apply a general right of political asylum to anybody who has committed an offence of a political character in countries which are supposed to be in political harmony and alliance with this country.
I disagree, therefore, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) when they say that the correct solution is to endeavour to assimilate the new law of this country to our extradition laws. That does not seem right to me, because the relationship between this country and the independent countries of the Commonwealth is quite different. We have a political alliance between ourselves and those countries. We owe a special loyalty to the other members of the Commonwealth, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) pointed out, there is the question of British citizenship and the allegiance which citizens of the independent countries of the Commonwealth owe, in a manner that applies to no alien.
Therefore, one has, on the one hand, the situation of a foreign country to which there is no known allegiance and no political alliance and there is no duty between this country and that, and, on the other hand, the situation that exists between, for example, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are different criminal laws, different criminal systems and different criminal courts, and yet no one would consider it proper to give asylum in England to a political refugee from Scotland because we have political unity and the furtherance of the political harmony of the parts of the United Kingdom is over-riding.
Further, if I am right in thinking that this principle is applied as between this country and the Republic of Ireland, which is not even a member of the Commonwealth—namely, that our political harmony and interests are so closely tied that it is essential that we should exchange political prisoners—why should we think that it

is proper to refuse it to people who are in the Commonwealth with us and whose Prime Ministers attend the Prime Miniters' Commonwealth Conferences? Why should we treat the Government of such a country, when they want their political prisoners back with them, in a manner exactly similar to countries which are foreign to us, with which we have no particular alliances and no political allegiance and with which we are not endeavouring to carry on any political unity in world politics.
Grotius, the greatest international lawyer who has ever lived, long ago pointed out that one of the principal and most usual features of a close alliance between States was their agreement to return to each other those who had committed crimes which opposed their common purpose or which endangered the stability of one of their own numbers—that is, of course, particularly, and above all, crimes of a political nature. I think that it was this principle which informed the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which is proposed to be repealed, and it is this principle that we are now abandoning.
It may well be that the position of the Commonwealth is now such that it is impossible to recognise that it is other than a loose confederation of states with no sufficient harmony, no sufficient allegiance and no sufficient loyalty to each other that we should come to the help of each other. If that be the position, let the House of Commons recognise it. But I for one deeply regret that it should be necessary to do so at this stage. The stage may come in the end when it is necessary to recognise that, but I certainly do not think that it ought to be recognised now.
There will be many situations in the future when for the political advancement of the Commonwealth it will be highly desirable that a Fascist or a Communist should be properly tried and should not be left at liberty and untried. That, however, may well be the result of this Bill. There will be many occasions, too, when it will be in the interests not only of this country but of the Commonwealth that those who have endeavoured to subvert a loyal ally of this country and a fellow member of the Commonwealth should be properly tried for their dastardly attempt to bring down a particular regime.
Also, is it not possible that by passing this Bill we are not only recognising the


lack of any common loyalty or political alliance existing in the Commonwealth but also exposing ourselves, as has been said in the course of this debate, to a position in which we shall be bound to receive in this country, and will not be able to get rid of, those who have committed crimes of a political character in the Commonwealth? If they are Commonwealth citizens who have lawfully obtained permission to land in this country, will it not then be impossible, if they have committed a crime of a political character, to get rid of them out of this country by deporting them?
That was the course which was followed in the case of Dr. Soblen when he, being required for trial for a crime of a political character in America, arrived in this country. He could not be extradited, but he could at least be deported, and so we did not have to have the odium of keeping him here.
As I understand it, any Fascist, political extremist or agent of a foreign power who has resorted to a crime of a political nature but is a Commonwealth citizen can under the Bill expect to stay in this country if he can reach it. If so, we shall become the dustbin of the Commonwealth. This really is a prospect that I regard with a great deal of trepidation. It was all very well when travel was restricted and most of the political refugees were of a liberal or more Left-wing point of view than the countries from which they fled and their outlook by and large conformed to the outlook and politics of this country. But under this Bill, if we are not careful, we shall have the obligation of keeping in this country people who will be detestable to all parties of this House and to all people in this country.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell me how it will be possible to get rid of a Commonwealth citizen who has committed a crime of a political character. Once we have decided not to send him back to the demanding country, whatever he subsequently does in this country it will be extraordinarily difficult either to send him back again or to deport him. If he has arrived in this country wanted for a crime of a political character or it is thought that he would be prejudiced if he were returned, and then he commits in this country a series of offences for

which he might normally be deported, it will be wholly impossible for the Home Secretary to deport him back to the country which the Home Secretary has already decided wanted him for a political purpose or where he would be prejudiced in his trial by season of his race, religion, or political outlook.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that there really are some particularly anxious cases in the field of espionage. As I understand it, if this Bill had been passed and Canada had passed similar legislation, Mr. Fuchs and Mr. Pontecorvo, having got to Canada, could have stayed there and we could not have got them back because it is not even an extradictable offence under the Bill. If Vassall had got to Australia or if an Australian Vassall had got to this country, it would have been not only not an extradictable offence but an offence of a political character, and to this extent also he would have had permanent asylum in this country or in Australia respectively.
Suppose, again, that a political racist who was a Commonwealth citizen, for purely racist and political reasons, endeavoured to assassinate or succeeded in assassinating Mr. Kenyatta or Mr. Kaunda in his Commonwealth country. Is it right that he should be able to stay here wholly unmolested and that we should not be able to try him here or to return him for trial or to dismiss him from this country? If this is the result of the Bill, it certainly causes me the very deepest anxiety.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull when he says that the idea of political assassination certainly ought not to be recognised by this Bill. I should certainly have liked to see in this legislation, and, as a matter of fact, in the extradition legislation, also a provision that political asylum is never available for the political assassin. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether we also have to keep a person who, by violent political crime, had attempted to subvert, for instance, the colony of Hong Kong and attach it either to Communist China or Formosa? Is it correct that such a person, if a Commonwealth citizen, could stay here with impunity and that we could not get rid of him? If so, that seems to be an utterly ridiculous result of the Bill.
I think that there is a special relationship and a mutual interest between the members of the Commonwealth which itself justifies special provisions which are different from the Extradition Act. We ought to recognise the right of member countries to have the support of their fellow members and the duty of members of the Commonwealth to support each other when they are in danger.
I should have liked to have seen the Bill, if it is to be different from the Extradition Act, proceed upon the basis that it is purely and solely for the courts to decide whether an offence is or is not of a predominantly political character. This is largely a mixed question of law and fact which the courts are well able to decide. It is far better that it should be decided by the courts because it can then at least be known that it has been decided without any political motives by the Executive. It is much easier for the courts to decide it than it is for the Executive to decide it, because the Executive are always politically interested in the decision.
I have altered the test. I have said the test should be a crime of a predominantly political character. That is the test Belgium has always employed from about 1830, because when we get crimes partly political, partly criminal, it is difficult to disentangle which is the more important element. It is rather easier if murder is 90 per cent. sheer criminality and 10 per cent. political only. There ought not to be a ground of political asylum in such circumstances.
I should much prefer that the test should be whether it is of a "predominantly" political character. Once the courts have certified in each case whether the crime was or was not of a political character, then I would have suggested that in all cases the Home Secretary should have a discretion. He should be the judge according to the way in which the courts have certified. If it is certified to be a political crime then the Home Secretary should not grant rendition unless he is satisfied that it is in the interests of the safety and security of the Commonwealth, or in the vital interests of this country, or that it is essential for the stability of the demanding country, that the prisoner should go back.
In other words, the Home Secretary should normally be expected not to return a man for a crime of a political character unless he is expressly satisfied that for overriding political reasons, in the interests of the Commonwealth, or of either of the two countries, the man should be given back. On the other hand, if the court is satisfied it is not a political crime, then I would have thought the Home Secretary should normally always grant rendition and not refuse the rendition unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable that the man should have sanctuary probably for the reasons set out in Clause 8(3).
If the criticisms of the Bill as it stands are correct it is because Clause 4(1) now provides that the Home Secretary should decide whether it is a crime of a political character or not. I am also equally in agreement with all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have said that it is contrary to the comity between the courts that the courts of law should have the duty of deciding under Clause 4(1,b) whether or not a request for the return of the prisoner is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him for an improper reason, that the courts of this country, including magistrates' courts, should be sitting in judgment on the motives of the Government of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. That surely must be wrong.
The Clause 4(1,c) also must be wrong—to expect the courts, including again the magistrates' courts, to form a judgment whether the courts of the Commonwealth country will or will not treat a man fairly if he is returned. We are putting in the Bill a security, namely, that a man, on rendition, shall only be tried for an offence for which he is returned and must be given, if acquitted, the opportunity to return to this country. I should have thought we have got to the stage now where paragraphs 4(1,b) and (c) are not necessary, where we really can take the view that the courts of the Commonwealth are reliable. While there are exceptions—there are, perhaps, exceptions in one or two Commonwealth countries where things are not always done in as satisfactory a manner as might be expected—by and large we have to rely on the courts generally of the Commonwealth to dispense justice, and it is wholly wrong that the courts of this country should be in a


position to form any judgment either about the motives of the Governments of independent countries or about the fairness and impartiality of the courts of the independent Commonwealth countries.
May I just raise some of the points also on the Schedule of the crimes? I see that some crimes have been added which are not extraditable—bigamy, smuggling of precious metals, silver, conspiring to defeat the course of justice. If we are going to have a system of this kind analogous to extradition, why are these particular offences added? I should also ask about the odd provision about
Contravention of import or export prohibitions relating to precious stones, gold and other precious metals.
Why not exchange control generally? I should have thought a major interest of all the countries of the Commonwealth. particularly those which are members of the sterling area, was to secure the enforcement throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth of exchange control, and yet all we are having as an extraditable offence is
Contravention of imports or exports prohibitions relating to precious stones, gold and other precious metals.
One would have thought that an exchange control system was one for general enforcement throughout the whole Commonwealth.
May I also ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a point about treason? What is the position about treason? Is it the fact that any person arriving in this country, who is a Commonwealth citizen and who has committed treason against Her Majesty in the right of Her Crown of any other country, cannot be extradited at all? As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton asked, is the question of espionage clean out? Is the situation that any spy who gets to this country from a Commonwealth country, whatever the political motive on which he has been acting, and whether acting for the West or for the East, whether for a Communist or a Fascist country, will not be returnable for his crime to the Commonwealth country? And is not that a bit odd?
Then a number of sexual offences are not in. We have extradition provisions for offences under Sections 11 to 13 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, which are extraditable to or from France or

Germany or other foreign countries, but are not included, as I understand it, in the Schedule to this Bill. They include, amongst other things, sodomy, even with a boy under the age of 21, and if anyone is returnable for that to France, why not to a Commonwealth country? May I ask also whether consideration be given, before Committee, for conspiracy in connection with trade embargoes? Then there are industrial unrest, and the question of racial hatred. I would have thought that crimes connected with racial hatred were the one crime which should have been in the Schedule to the Bill. What about firearms offences and trafficking in arms? Is it right that a person in Africa who is trafficking in arms in a Commonwealth country is not to be returnable? Surely, that should be so.
Finally, I do hope the Government will, in Committee, give careful consideration to the question of political assassination of either the Head of State, or the head of a Government of a Commonwealth country. Surely we ought not in this country to accept without any remedy at all those who employ the weapon of murder for political ends. Nothing could be worse than that a person who has murdered either the head of a State or the Prime Minister of one of the countries in the Commonwealth should be able to come here and say, "You cannot return me to the country to stand trial because this was an offence of a political character". To this extent I hope that the Government in Committee will seriously consider whether that provision ought not to be amended.
I am bound to say that I am not at all happy about the Bill. I do not think that it proceeds on any recognisable principle. It does not adopt the Extradition Act, as it easily could have done; it differs from that Act in many features without any clear principle or upon any clear basis. If the Commonwealth is to have a different code from the ordinary Extradition Act, 1870, why do we not think out what are the implications of having a different code for political offenders?
Would it not be much better if we proceeded upon the basis that political offenders from Commonwealth countries should not normally be returned but that


the Home Secretary should take the responsibility of returning them if it is essential in the interests of the Commonwealth or of either of the two countries that this should be done, whereas on other offences he should normally always return them but should have a quite general discretion not to return them if he deems it just or fair or reasonable not to do so. He would not then get himself into the invidious position in which the Bill will put him of making judgments as he did in the Kwesi Armah case under Clause 4(1,c) that clearly implies that he trusts neither the Government nor the courts of a friendly Commonwealth country.

8.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I will start by telling the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) how grateful we are for his approach to the Bill. It is entirely for the House to decide whether the Bill should be passed, but I am glad that he, at any rate, will take into account the fact that an agreement of a kind was reached at the Commonwealth Law Ministers conference. The House will, I hope, understand that it will be extremely difficult, if that approach is to be followed, to consider in Committee Amendments which are inconsistent with the principles of the scheme. If there is room for Amendments which do not affect the principles of the scheme, they can be considered.
But clearly the fact that this has been an agreed scheme has not inhibited criticism, and I will do my best to answer most of them, although I am grateful that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) realises that I cannot answer at short notice every point that he raised. The main criticism of the Bill has probably been that it does not put aliens and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing, particularly under Clause 4. That has not been the criticism of all hon. Members who have spoken because there were some—for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)—who felt that the provisions for Commonwealth citizens should be quite different from those of aliens. I was not quite

clear which of these two strands of thought was followed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington. I understand that he would prefer the provisions to be different but that if they are not to be different, he would like them to be identical.
Of these two schools of thought, I hope that the House will accept that they should be as close as possible. The Commonwealth as a whole has tried to assimilate them. Every member of the Commonwealth agreed that there should be stricter protection than in the past for political refugees from within the Commonwealth, and similarly it seemed to be the view of most people in this country after the Enahoro case that the old position was untenable and that we should try to treat those who were in a position of complete independence within the Commonwealth in the same way, or as nearly as possible, as we treat those who are aliens. Certainly the process of consultation for bringing the two more into line was started under the last Conservative Home Secretary.
I certainly accept that in the ideal system our extradition law should be exactly the same as the rendition of fugitive offenders in the Commonwealth. But I would make two comments. The first concerns the technical, legal point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. In fact, at present we have two different sets of provisions with two different sets of words, and whatever one may say about the new provisions under the Bill they are closer to the Extradition Act provision than was the case in the past. Secondly, I am not sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and for that matter my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), fully appreciated the circumstances of the conference.
There were 22 different nations represented. It was a conference composed of men of very high calibre. Many of them had dissimilar extradition legislation. It was impossible simply to put before them the British Extradition Act and to say, "This will now be the agreement of the Conference". The British delegation were not in the position of bringing forward a Bill and then accepting or not accepting Amendments in Committee. It was an attempt to get an


overall agreement, and there had to be a large amount of give and take.
This is reflected in many of the provisions which were finally agreed. For example, Clause 4 as it finally emerged was not in the form in which it was originally proposed in the United Kingdom draft. A number of points which have been made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite were made at the Conference. The short answer to points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill and right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite is that it was the overwhelming desire of members of the Conference to enact provisions which were broadly those of the European Convention on Extradition. The point was made that in many Commonwealth countries there are Bills of Rights which incorporate the European Convention, and for this reason they were extremely keen—it was the overwhelming opinion of a number of Commonwealth countries—that the political offences Clause should be based on Article 3(2) of the Convention.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and others said that the new Clause 4 goes much wider than the Extradition Act 1870, but I must point out that it does not go by any means as wide as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It was said that if we refused to return someone, if the courts refused to do so because it was a political offence, we were casting a slur on the Commonwealth courts and impuging the good faith of Commonwealth Governments. In fact, the provision of the Extradition Act—and I can only say that a number of hon. Members have not read it very carefully—are not all that dissimilar from the provisions of Clause 4(1,b). Section 3(1) of the Extradition Act provides:
A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence…is one of a political character, or if he prove…that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character".
What does that do but "cast a slur" on the integrity of foreign Governments and foreign courts? If we are to have our new provisions in line with those of the Extradition Act, the difficulty arises in any event. There is the "slur".
It is true that the Bill goes wider because there is nothing in the Extradition Act corresponding to Clause 4(1,c), but I emphasise again that it does not go anything like so wide as the House previously supposed. In any event, the overwhelming majority of the Commonwealth States themselves wanted these provisions in the Bill.
It was said that the effect of the new Bill was undesirable in that it created a parallel jurisdiction. Again, I can only conclude that those who raised this point and at the same time wanted the new Bill to be in line with the Extradition Act had not looked at Section 3(1) of the Extradition Act. To quote again:
A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered…if he prove to the satisfaction of the police magistrate or the court before whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary of State, that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character.
There, too, is the parallel jurisdiction. It is provided that, first, the courts must decide it, and then the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there was no such intention to try or punish him for an offence which was in fact a political offence. Thus, exactly the same embarrassment arises, if such embarrassment there be, under the Extradition Act as under the proposals in the Bill.
I was asked about the order in which the proceedings would take place. First, under Clause 5 the Secretary of State gives authority for the issue of the warrant. Then the court of committal considers the question. I point out to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)—who is not here now—that he has not read the Bill, and there is no question of every magistrates' court in the country having to decide the question. In so far as the court of committal is a magistrates' court, it is Bow Street if it is in England. Then a higher court has to decide the matter. Normally, the Secretary of State will have to decide the question only if he wants to overrule the decision of the court. Supposing that the court is negative as against the defendant and it says that there is no political offence, normally the Secretary of State would exercise his further discretion only if there were some kind of new evidence. In the overwhelming majority of cases the


Secretary of State will be spared this difficult decision by the courts and he will not come to a conclusion different from that of the courts.
I was asked whether the courts could possibly come to any conclusion under Clause 4. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who, I understand, raised this point, as did the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and several others. Again, a very similar difficult decision already has to be reached by the court under the Extradition Act. It is a decision which must be taken in European countries also under the Convention on Extradition. Further, I can tell the House that the Lord Chief Justice was consulted about the operability of the Clause, and he told us that he saw no great difficulty in deciding matters under it. The question as to whether or not something is a political offence has often had to be decided in the past, and difficult political considerations of the kind which seem insuperable to hon. Members opposite were, for example, considered fairly recently in the Schtraks case.
Next, the difficulty in relation to the death penalty was strongly put. This was one of the principal arguments advanced at the time of the Enahoro dispute, and it was dim argued not just by the Opposition but quite widely in the House that there should be a discretion not to return if an offence carried the death penalty in the requesting country. Such a provision is found in more and more extradition treaties. I think I am right in saying that there are only three treaties still outstanding in which this matter has not been renegotiated.
If there is to be a discretion, the only way to do it is the way proposed in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the position is quite different for aliens because they can be deported. But, if the deportation argument were an argument against the provision, we could not have any provision at all. In fact, looking at the position as it would actually arise, it is somewhat doubtful how strong the deportation argument is arid how important the distinction drawn between aliens and Commonwealth citizens is. It is slightly odd to say that we will not return an alien because it is

a political offence, but will not have him in this country either. One only deports if there is another place for him to go, and the circumstances in which this country will say that it will not return to the requesting country but will not have him here either will be very limited.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman must know perfectly well of an individual I have in mind who wanted to kill General de Gaulle, or so it was thought. I understand that he came to this country for a time and then had to go; obviously the threat would be to deport him. Once he realised that that would be to send him back to France, he was glad to go of his own accord to a third country. That is the point I sought to make.

Mr. Taverne: With respect, I do not quite see that that reinforces the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, because that was not a case where someone had committed a crime. The question is that of somebody accused of having committed a crime and when his deportation is sought one says that one will not return him and will not have him here either. That is not a circumstance that is likely to arise often.
The point that is neglected when considering the difficulties about the death penalty discretion is that it is a case of a discretion. One would consider the nationality of the person whose return is sought. He might be a British national and it might be regarded as extremely invidious to return him, in certain cases, to face a death penalty that he would not face in this country.
Maybe one could try him here. One would consider the background, the circumstances of the offence and any assurances received from the requesting country. Only about a year ago there was a case in which someone was returned for a capital offence—the case of Sehilbach, who was returned to France.
Lastly, I was asked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman how the scheme would be implemented.

Sir J. Hobson: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say how he sees the lack of any power to deport, not in relation to murder but to political offences which are antagonistic to the interests of this country and the Commonwealth?

Mr. Taverne: That is the difficulty that arises if one is to have any provision for political offences; deportation is not something with which a Fugitive Offenders Bill can deal. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not really like not returning somebody because the offence concerned is political. He said so, and he differs in that, not only from us but from some of his hon. Friends. That is a difficulty inherent in the whole question of non-return of political offenders.
I was asked how the Bill applied to Dependencies.

Mr. Hogg: I raised what was, to me, an important question about the position of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and an attempt on her life. It seems to me that we should be bound to leave at large a person who made an attempt on the Queen's life and whose extradition was sought by another member of the Commonwealth. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants.

Mr. Taverne: First, that would presumably be a case in which a charge could be brought in this country. Secondly, there is the question of whether or not a case of that kind would be a political offence. There have been one or two rulings in the past on political offences which have suggested that that kind of assassination is not necessarily a political offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman either wants political offences in or he does not. There may be a special case that can be separately considered in a way which does not go against the scheme. I do not see a special difficulty here. Perhaps the point can be further considered in Committee.

Mr. Hogg: One knows of threats against the Queen both in Ghana and Canada, in the latter case by a Quebec Séparatiste. That would be a threat against the Queen in respect of her position as Queen of Canada and would not be triable here. If the person responsible came here, he would not be extraditable under the Bill because the offence would clearly be political. I cannot regard such an important matter as one of the special cases which can be examined in Committee. I think that the House should consider it, and consider it now.

Mr. Taverne: This is a question where one is, in fact, giving effect to a scheme. This is a scheme which deals with the question of a political offence, and what the right hon. Gentleman has raised is a point where there may be some doubt as to whether a particular offence is a political offence. That is something which must be considered by the courts. It is not something which goes to the root of the Bill. It is eminently a matter for consideration in Committee and is not a point of principle on the Bill as a whole.
I was asked about the implementation of the Bill and its effect on dependencies. There will be a different position as regards dependencies which are not designated territories. The position for the dependencies which are not designated territories is that there the discretion is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. It is not a matter for consideration by the courts. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the question of political offences is dealt with under Section 2(2) of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act.
I was also asked about the way in which the Bill would be brought into force. Once the appointed day Order has been made, the Bill's provisions will automatically apply in relation to the return of fugitives from the United Kingdom to the Colonies and associated States but not to independent Commonwealth countries or protected States. So Clause 21, which deals with the transitional provisions, will at first be brought into force only for the limited purposes of repealing the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, in respect of the return of fugitive offenders from the United Kingdom to the Colonies and associated States.
An Order in Council will be made under Clause 2(1) designating all other independent members of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Bill and, as soon as it is made, all essential restrictions and discretions will come into force as part of the law of the United Kingdom as soon as possible. The Commonwealth Governments will be informed in advance of our intention to make this Order in Council, and so each Commonwealth Government will have an opportunity of indicating whether it desires that any Order in Council should be made under Clause 2(3) bringing in all


of the provisions of the Measure in their application to the particular Commonwealth country concerned.
I was asked a number of questions about the matters in the list. This, I think, can be most suitably dealt with in Committee. Stress has been laid in the debate on the provisions relating to espionage and treason. As far as espionage and treason are concerned, one must face the fundamental question as to whether political offences are to be provided for or not. It is hard to imagine cases of espionage which are not political offences. But the scheme provides in Clause 17—and it was mentioned at the conference as something which individual countries might arrange—that individual countries might have bilateral arrangements rather more strict than those provided for under the scheme as a whole.
It might be that, under arrangements the Government arrived at with a country like Canada, for example, espionage cases, too, would be extraditable. As far as dependencies are concerned, where there is one clear Sovereign in fact as well as in form, a much stricter view of returnable offences can be taken.

Sir J. Hobson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, under special arrangements about treason with, say, Canada, provisions for return or rendition for political offences would also be included or would one be in difficulty because one could not get someone back from Canada for treason because it was a political offence?

Mr. Taverne: Individual arrangements might be reached which would be much

stricter and therefore narrow the scope of political offences, so that treason could be extradictable as between the two. In fact, the case of an attack on the Queen which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was concerned about would also be dealt with in this way.
One of the main contentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that this Bill will create difficulties within the Commonwealth. I take a quite different view. There were 22 representatives of 22 different nations at this conference. They wanted tighter rules and wanted political offences to be included. There were many different attitudes and many different interests. They resolved these differences, achieved general agreement and it is true to say that this general agreement was warmly welcomed at the end.
I have paid tribute to the representatives who attended that conference, for their determination to reach the agreement that they did, and the fact that they did so and wanted to do so shows what a strong link exists in the Commonwealth by virtue of the community and the legal background existing between Commonwealth States. I hope that this Bill will be welcomed and accepted as giving effect to the scheme which was agreed at the Commonwealth Conference.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

RHODESIA (PROHIBITED TRADE AND DEALINGS)

8.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 1595), dated 21st December, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It might be for the convenience of the House if with this Order we discuss the next following Order:
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 99), dated 30th January 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
If required, we could have a separate Division on each.

Mr. Bowden: There are two Orders which the House is being asked to approve, the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order, 1966, and the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order, 1967. The latter Order amends both the earlier Order and also the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Order, 1965. It might therefore be for the convenience of the House if I take both Orders together.
As the House is aware, the Security Council of the United Nations, on 16th December, 1966, adopted a resolution providing for effective and selective mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia. I do not propose to weary the House by rehearsing yet again the background to this development. Our intention to implement the undertakings contained in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué was debated at length in both Houses earlier in December, and I hope that there is no desire that I should repeat all that was said by Government spokesmen during that Debate.
The purpose of the two Orders now before the House is to give effect, when read together with the Petroleum Order, to the Resolution passed by the Security

Council of the United Nations on 16th December last year. The Petroleum Order was, of course, fully debated in this House when it was made over a year ago.
Like some of the other Orders made under the Southern Rhodesia Act that have come before this House, they operate not only as part of the law of the United Kingdom, but they also operate as part of the law of Southern Rhodesia itself. They do not operate as part of the law of any other of our overseas territories, but separate and corresponding provision has been made, so far as necessary, in the law of all those territories.
I turn now to the particular provisions of the principal Order. Article 1 prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of goods specified in Schedule 1 that have been exported from Southern Rhodesia since the commencement of the Order. The goods in question are: asbestos, iron ore, chrome, pig iron, sugar, tobacco, copper, meat and meat products, and hides, skins and leather.
Under paragraph (2) the Article has effect as an enactment relating to customs, so that all the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 concerned with the importation of goods are applied.
Article 2, except for paragraph (5), operates as part of the law of Southern Rhodesia as well as of the United Kingdom and prohibits the exportation from Southern Rhodesia of the goods which I have already mentioned. So, under those two separate sections, the importation and the exportation of those articles are prohibited.
Paragraph (6) of Article 2 calls for special mention, since it is this provision, together with a couple of other corresponding provisions elsewhere in the Order, which is the subject of the amendment effected by the second Order of 1967, the one made last week.
In accordance with previous practice, prohibited activities by individuals outside the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia—leaving aside special cases such as carriage of prohibited goods in British ships and aircraft—constituted offences only if committed by citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, British subjects without citizenship, or British


protected persons who were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, or by citizens of Southern Rhodesia. However, the Security Council Resolution required Member States to prevent dealings in the specified commodities which I read out, not only "within their own territories" but also "by their nationals" without qualification as to their place of residence.
United Kingdom citizens, even though resident abroad, are still our nationals and ought therefore to be covered by our legislation. Accordingly, the amending order of 31st January,1967, makes United Kingdom nationals resident outside the United Kingdom liable for prosecution whenever they come within the jurisdiction of British Courts if they commit an offence under the main Order of the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Act of 1965, or under this Order of 1966. This is the reason for the Amending Order.
I turn now to the Articles which deal with trade in the reverse direction. That is to say, with the supply of certain goods to Southern Rhodesia.
Article 3 prohibits the exportation from the United Kingdom to Southern Rhodesia of goods specified in Schedule 2 of the Order. Article 4 prohibits the supply or delivery of those goods to Southern Rhodesia, and also prohibits certain ancillary transactions.
Article 5 prohibits the importation of those goods into Southern Rhodesia and, again, certain ancillary transactions. The goods in question, as set out in Schedule 2, are: arms, ammunition, aircraft, motor vehicles, and equipment and materials for the manufacture, assembly or maintenance of any of these goods.
It will be appreciated that the question whether equipment and materials are, in fact, for the manufacture, assembly or maintenance of any of these goods, may not be readily apparent in every case. To meet this difficulty, Part II of Schedule 2 lays down certain rules for determining this question for the purposes of all three of these Articles.
Broadly speaking, the effect of these rules is that equipment and materials are deemed to be for a prohibited purpose if, and only if, it is shown that the person concerned himself intended that they should be used for that purpose or if it can be shown that he had reasonable cause to believe that another

person intended that they should be used for that purpose.
Article 6 deals with the manufacture and maintenance in Southern Rhodesia of motor vehicles and aircraft. It directly prohibits the use or operation of undertakings in Southern Rhodesia for this purpose.
Article 7 is the provision which gives effect to that part of the Security Council Resolution which calls upon States to prevent the carriage of the various prohibited commodities in their ships and aircraft. It will be seen that paragraphs (1) and (3) deal with goods exported from Rhodesia, and paragraphs (2) and (4) with goods that are being carried to Rhodesia.
Article 8 of the Order confers certain powers to investigate ships and aircraft which are suspected of being involved in the carriage of goods contrary to Article 7 or to the Southern Rhodesia (Petroleum) Order of 1965.
In respect of ships, these powers are conferred on authorised officers, that is to say, on naval and military officers, Customs officers, consular officers and Board of Trade officials. In respect of aircraft, they are conferred on the Board of Trade and officers of Customs and Excise. We cannot afford to have British ships and aircraft flouting the Security Council Resolution with impunity. I am sure that in most cases these powers will not need to be used. But, in view of the wide diversity of ships and aircraft that operate under British registration, we cannot rule out the odd case of deliberate contravention.
The fact that we have taken these powers will also help us to persuade other countries to police their own shipping equally effectively. Conversely, it will help use to resist any demand, wherever it may come from, that any other authority should police our shipping. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will agree that this provision, though drastic, is justified.
Article 9 and Schedule 3 confer certain powers on the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to obtain evidence and information for the purpose of securing compliance with or detecting evasion of this Order, or of the prohibition on the carriage of petroleum. We cannot


afford to dispense with these powers if the prohibitions we have imposed are to be a reality and not mere window-dressing. For the most part, I am sure that the commercial community will scrupulously comply with the law. But there may be a few black sheep, and the existence of these powers will both act as a deterrent to them and enable those who transgress to be found out and brought to justice.
Article 10 deals with penalties and with proceedings for offences against the Order. I would particularly draw attention to paragraph (5). Proceedings for an offence against the Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. This ensures that prosecutions will not be brought lightly or frivolously.
I do not need to deal in detail with Articles 11 and 12, but I should like to draw attention to paragraph (2) of Article 12 which makes it clear that goods passing through Rhodesia merely in transit are not caught by the Order. This is intended to prevent, in particular, any difficulty about the transit through Rhodesia of goods from Zambia, especially Zambian copper. Paragraph (3) of Article 12 makes it clear that goods imported into Rhodesia for the purpose of the three common service organisations, that is to say, the Central African Power Corporation, Rhodesia Railways and the Central African Airways Corporation, are also not caught by the Order. Paragraph (4) of Article 12 safeguards the position of vehicles and aircraft whose entry into Rhodesia, either on an ad hoc journey or as part of a regular scheduled service, is merely incidental to their carrying persons or goods into or out of or across Rhodesia and is not part of the process of importation in the ordinary sense of that word.
The mandatory sanctions resolution opens a new phase. While it is still too early to attempt any realistic assessment of the effects of mandatory sanctions, the commodities covered by the resolution comprised no less than about 60 per cent. of Rhodesia's total exports in 1965.

Mandatory sanctions will, therefore, intensify the existing pressure on the Rhodesian economy. If the embargoes are successful—and we shall do our best to see that they are—Rhodesia's exports will be reduced by up to a further £30 million, with particularly serious effects on the mining and agricultural sectors.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will wind up the debate on these Orders, and deal with any points of legal interpretation which right hon. and hon. Members may raise.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Could the right hon. Gentleman give the cost of this to Great Britain in a year, including the loss of trade and the cost of policing?

Mr. Bowden: Purely from memory, I think that the last time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the question the figure was £16 million.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet): I should like to start by saying that we on this side also are glad to see the Secretary of State back in his place and hope that he is fully restored after his recent illness. Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech and with the Orders I must say that I thought that the answer which he has just given to my hon. Friend was very inadequate. I do not believe that the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman—obviously, one needs notice of these figures—was anything like the total cost to the British economy, direct and indirect, of the present sanctions policy.
In discussing the Orders, we are debating a fairly narrow issue. We on this side were rather surprised that the Orders were necessary, because we had the impression from what the Government had said in the past that the powers which they had taken and the Orders they had issued had already brought trade between this country and Southern Rhodesia pretty well to a complete halt. It was difficult, therefore, to understand what more was needed. The Secretary of State has very kindly taken us through some of the intricacies of the Orders, but I am still a little baffled.
I should like to ask a couple of questions about the effect of the Orders. The


first concerns British ships at sea. What win happen if a British ship is carrying to a Southern African port, for example, a motor car destined for Rhodesia, which it was perfectly legal to export from the port when the vehicle was picked up? Suppose that the ship goes to a port in a country from which it is legal to sell a motor car to Rhodesia, then picks up the car and takes it to a Southern African port on the way to Rhodesia. What is the position then of a British ship? Can it he stopped at sea or held up for breaking the law? Why would it be breaking the law when carrying something which it was perfectly legal to take on board at the time when it was taken aboard?
This whole business of stopping and, presumably, searching ships at sea is a major step to take. As a maritime nation, we have always rightly been jealous of the position of ships on the high seas and we would be very reluctant to accord to the authorities of any Government the right to stop and search ships. We must be very clear on this point.
What is it that British ships cannot carry? Why is it illegal for them to carry it'? What powers do the ships of other nations have over our ships in carrying these commodities to Southern African ports if they happen to be destined ultimately for Southern Rhodesia?
The second point on which I would like elucidation concerns subsidiaries of British companies operating overseas. What is the position of a British company's subsidiary operating in another country and exporting goods to Southern Rhodesia if the country in which it operates legally permits the export of those goods? Is it prohibited from exporting them? If so, what is the position between the country concerned and ourselves in the matter of control of companies operating within their respective jurisdictions? These are questions of considerable importance which we should like to probe and to have answered.
The Government are saying that in putting forward the Orders they are doing something of substantial importance, otherwise it would not be necessary to make the Orders. We would like to know how these Orders impinge upon the position of British shipping companies operating throughout the world and the subsidiaries of British manufacturing and trading companies equally operating

throughout the world in conditions where local domestic jurisdiction concerning trade and business may vary very much from the legislation of this country.
If I may turn to the Orders in general, as the Secretary of State said, they are designed to carry out the Resolution of the Security Council imposing what are called selective mandatory sanctions upon trade with Rhodesia. We on this side of the House opposed the policy of mandatory sanctions and, therefore, we oppose these Orders, because they are a consequence of the policy which we voted against just a few weeks ago. Clearly, like the Secretary of State, I think that it would be wrong for me to go at great length into the arguments against the general policy, but I should briefly remind the House of the reasons why we think that the policy is wrong and, therefore, the reasons why we think that these Orders are wrong, because the Orders follow upon the policy.
First, we believe that submitting the problem to the United Nations meant a loss of control by Britain over an essentially British problem. Though we have heard arguments from the Prime Minister based, for example, on the wording of the Preamble to the Resolution, we are not convinced that the problem now remains wholly within the control of the British Government.
Secondly, we feel that the sanctions by this country which are brought into being by the Orders which we are now discussing will not be effective.
I should like to ask what is happening in other countries. All the history of economic sanctions suggests that they do not work unless everyone is prepared to operate them. I understand that in Germany they are not prepared to implement sanctions in respect of existing contracts, and that is a major matter which affects our own sanctions directly. That is why I think that it is relevant to these Orders.
Similarly, the Swiss are very keen, energetic, active and ingenious traders. Are they carrying out regulations of this character? Upon the effect of their regulations, we must judge the effect of our own regulations, and therefore this is a very relevant matter.
What about the United States? One has heard or seen suggestions that there is considerable opposition in the United


States Congress to the imposition of these sanctions so far as American traders are concerned. What about Zambia? No doubt for very good reasons, their economy depending very much on Rhodesia, I understand that there also the sanctions ordered by the United Nations are far from being carried out by the Zambian Government.
In these Orders, the Government are asking the House of Commons to impose certain sanctions so far as British traders are concerned. I think that I am in order in saying that, before granting the Orders, we ought to know whether other traders competing with our own are in practice subject to the same inhibitions, and whether the Governments of countries like Germany, Switzerland, America and Zambia are doing the same thing. We cannot fairly impose upon our own traders inhibitions which their competitors do not suffer in practice.

Mr. Christopher Rowland (Meriden): I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that other countries should also impose sanctions effectively, but does he not appreciate that one way of getting them to do it is to make sanctions mandatory through the United Nations?

Mr. Maudling: My answer to that precise point is, "No". That is what I want to know. In theory, that should be effective. In theory, there should not be any more goods going from America, Switzerland, Germany or Zambia, for example. However, in practice they are. Before we decide what to do, we ought to know what the effect of mandatory sanctions is upon other countries.
Our third argument concerns the position of South Africa. That is highly relevant to the Orders before us, because we have always argued that to try to impose mandatory sanctions on Rhodesia without the support of South Africa is purely wasting time. So long as goods can flow through South Africa, and, in particular, so long as South Africa is prepared to see the flow of oil to Rhodesia continuing, the proposals in these Orders are totally ineffective. So far as I am aware, the attitude of the Government of South Africa has been clear from the start. They said, "Our line is normal trade. Our policy is that we will not take part in any boycott whatsoever". I

believe that this is still their position. Have the Government any contrary information?
If it be true that this is the position of the Government of South Africa, if it be true that these mandatory sanctions will not be imposed by South Africa, this country cannot hope to produce any decisive effect in Rhodesia by imposing sanctions on British traders which will be nullified by the actions of another Government. Before passing these Orders, or before, as I hope, not passing them—as I explained, we intend to vote against them—we should hear what the position of the South African Government is.
Our final argument against this whole process and this whole policy was that, by going to the United Nations and asking for mandatory sanctions, the British Government were merely consolidating opinion behind Mr. Smith and discouraging moderate opinion in Rhodesia. This once again is coming to pass, as we said it would. One sees in more than one instance—I regret to say that I think the latest speech by Mr. Smith himself shows this—the way in which this putting of the problem to the United Nations, as the Government have chosen to do, is consolidating and hardening opinion and giving more strength to the Right wing in Rhodesia.
The most dangerous thing in the last few days—this is directly linked once again with sanctions as part and parcel of the whole policy—was the Prime Minister's statement at Question Time last Thursday that, no matter what government were in power in Rhodesia, no matter if the moderates came forward—whoever they might be—there would be no independance before majority rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now getting wide of the Orders.

Mr. Maudling: With deep respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has always emphasised the linkage of paragraph 10(a) and 10(b) of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference communiqué. He has always emphasised that the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations was linked indissolubly with the question of no independence before majority rule; it has all been part and parcel of a single policy. My argument is that the implementation of these


rules is the implementation of that policy, of which no independence before majority rule is an essential part.
Our four points against mandatory sanctions, which are the purpose of the Orders, have always remained the same. First, there will be a loss of control by Britain. Secondly, they will not work, unless other countries do the same thing. Thirdly, they will certainly not work without South African support. Fourthly, they will consolidate opinion behind the Right wing in Rhodesia and make the position of the moderates and a would-be moderate alternative government totally impossible. All the arguments are arguments we advance against the policy, and all these arguments we advance against the Orders.
We believe that by these Orders and by the policy underlying them the Government are set upon a disastrous course. We can see on these lines no sign of an alternative to a very serious clash between Britain and Rhodesia and possibly between Britain and the whole of Southern Africa.
We argue that the alternative to these measures must be discussion and agreement, because the alternatives are either agreement or force. Force is ruled out, we believe—and we think that every one believes—in military terms. We think that force is also ruled out in effect in economic terms. Therefore, the Government's purpose should not be to bring forward Orders of this character. It should be to try to seek all the time a way of agreement between Britain and Rhodesia to find the answer we all want.
It may be said that by voting against these Orders we are voting against the authority of the United Nations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Hear, hear.

Mr. Maudling: This, with respect to the Attorney-General, is absolute nonsense. The House is entitled to consider alternative actions. We contend, as the alternative policy to the present policy, that, instead of carrying on with this course, which is fraught with disaster, the Government should return to the United Nations and say "Instead of imposing economic sanctions, we should like the opportunity once again of seeking agree-

ment between Britain and Southern Rhodesia on the basis of discussion, on the basis of agreement".
I hope that the Attorney-General will not say that this is impossible. He of all people cannot say that, because the Government have always maintained that Britain has not lost control of the situation. If we have not lost control, we certainly do not have to proceed with economic mandatory sanctions. If we have not lost control, if Britain still retains control of this essentially British problem, it is still possible for the Government to go back to the United Nations and say, "We do not think that this policy is right". We on this side do not think that it is, and therefore in voting against these Orders we are voting against a policy which we think is wrong, and voting for an alternative wholly consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Charter which would be better in the interests both of this country and of all the peoples in Rhodesia.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale): I start by referring to the last point made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his reference to the United Nations. I can understand his case, or the case put by himself and his right hon. Friends, that they did not want this matter referred to the United Nations, although this is a point for argument which we argued before, and which we may no doubt argue again. But once the Security Council has made a decision by such a majority as it did on this occasion, then I think it is stretching the case very far to suggest that to oppose the operation of the mandatory sanctions which have been voted for by the United Nations is not action which is opposed to the United Nations itself.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman would agree that the matter is now out of the hands of Britain?

Mr. Foot: No. I shall try to the best of my ability to deal with all the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot deal with them all in one sentence. I was dealing first with his last argument. I was trying to draw the distinction which I should have thought was a clear one. After all, hon.


Gentlemen, argued strongly, or some of them argued, they were never quite clear which of them were arguing strongly, that this matter should never be referred to the United Nations. Presumably they did not want it referred to the United Nations partly because they feared what might be the decision of the United Nations, and did not want to abide by it, but now the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that once a decision of this character is made by the Security Council, once the Security Council passes a resolution saying that certain action is mandatory on all the countries who are members of the United Nations, we need not carry it out. I know that there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so opposed to the United Nations that they do not want to carry out what the United Nations says, but that is not the claim of the Front Bench opposite. They have, until recently, claimed to be supporters of the United Nations.
What we are discussing partly today is a further retreat by the Conservatives away from any claim to support the general principles of the United Nations and towards their general isolationist policy.

Mr. Maudling: That is not the point. I am saying that, having asked the United Nations for mandatory sanctions, it is possible for the British Government to go back and say that this was an error. This is what a Conservative Government would do.

Mr. Foot: I suppose that is a conceivable possibility, but so long as it is a decision of the United Nations that certain mandatory policies should be followed, I should have thought that for this country not to follow those policies would be a defiance of the United Nations. Words are robbed of all meaning otherwise. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have been more candid with the House—and he is usually extremely candid when his party policies enable him to be—if he had made it clear that his party, as some hon. Gentlemen will no doubt say quite openly, is opposed to these policies of the United Nations and is so bitterly opposed to them that it does not care what injury is inflcted on the United Nations by the policies it is advocating.
One of the main reasons why we should support the Government is precisely that this is a decisison of the United Nations, and this country has made pledges and given binding undertakings to carry out the Resolutions of the United Nations—not every Resolution, but mandatory Resolutions formally passed by the Security Council. These resolutions are binding on all members of the United Nations. We have pledged ourselves to carry out such commitments, but the Conservative Party is attempting to get us to abandon those pledges and to tear up the commitments we made when we signed the Charter of the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to conceal that fact.
Now let us take the three arguments that the right hon. Gentleman put forward as forming the ground on which he opposed the Government's policy. If the Opposition had come forward in this debate merely citing certain technicalities of the Order, or referring to practical details which they said were difficult to achieve and inquiring how this or that could be operated, we could have understood it. It would be in conformity with the desire to make the decisions of the United Nations effective. But the right hon. Gentleman has greatly broadened the argument. If we were to follow his advice this country would defy the decision of the United Nations and the vast majority of the nations of the world which assemble together to make it.
The right hon. Gentleman's first argument against the Government was that they should not have agreed to refer this matter to the United Nations because it would mean a loss of control by this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had said that he wished to keep this matter within the control of the Government. The Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions, and I am sure that that was his desire. But he has also said, whenever we have debated this matter, "I warn the House, and I warn in particular right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if we were to pursue the courses that they are recommending we would find it more and more difficult to retain control of the question".
That is what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. The right hon.


Gentleman did not refer to that. He went very wide in his speech, but I am not surprised that he did not refer to that, because what he recommended to the House and what the Conservative Party will presumably be voting for tonight is the break-up of the Commonwealth. The commitment we made to the Commonwealth was that if the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Conference were not accepted by the Smith régime in Rhodesia we would proceed with an alternative policy, one item of which was to withdraw all offers to Mr. Smith and his régime and commit ourselves to the proposition of no independence before majority rule.
That was one proposition to which this country was committed at the Commonwealth Conference, assuming that the negotiations with Smith broke down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will recall that I reminded the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that he was getting wide of the Order in dealing with this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to the Order.

Mi. Foot: It is certainly not my intention to go as wide as the right hon. Gentleman did. If I am veering in that direction I am glad to be warned of the fact. I was seeking to underline the fact that two interlinked commitments were made at the Commonwealth Conference, one of which was the proposition to which I shall not refer again, and the other that action would be taken to deal with the Smith régime by alternative methods. Everyone knew that there would be a reference to the United Nations if the Smith régime did not accept the propositions that the Government made. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says that his first objection to this policy is that it means a loss of control by this country he must take into account the fact that if we had not taken this matter to the United Nations there would have been a complete rupture with the Commonwealth.
If we had not made the proposition to which I am apparently not entitled to refer and taken the other step, of referring the matter to the United Nations, we would have broken our pledges o the Commonwealth, the Com-

monwealth would have been destroyed, and at the United Nations action would have been taken by some Commonwealth countries and countries outside the Commonwealth to put forward Resolutions much more unacceptable to this country.
So it is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking that his policy is one that could have kept the subject within the control of this country. That was not the alternative. If the policy that the Government pursued had not been pursued, other countries would have gone to the United Nations and proposed resolutions which might have gone much further than the Government desired, and in any case the matter would have been removed from the control of this country. These are the facts, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
The right hon. Gentleman's first argument about the loss of control by this country is completely false. Whatever differences of opinion we may have in this House about how this matter should be dealt with, all of us should acknowledge in candour that it was impossible for this country to have kept this matter solely within our own control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Utter nonsense."] Perhaps I should alter that sentence and say that we could have kept it in our own control at the price of a complete break-up of the Commonwealth and complete isolation at the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the logical deduction from the policy which the Opposition are advocating.

Mr. James Dance: The hon. Gentleman is speaking a great deal about the Commonwealth. What assistance to the Commonwealth does he think really comes out of the Government's present attitude to Malta and Gibraltar?

Mr. Foot: I should be out of order if I replied to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am quite prepared to express my views on Gibraltar and Malta at any time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was right in his first reaction.

Mr. Foot: I come now to the second ground on which the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Order. He asked: Will the sanctions work? I am not sure whether he was suggesting that if the


Government could say "We know that the sanctions will work perfectly" he would be any more satisfied. Most of his right hon. and hon. Friends would be angrier than ever if the Government could prove that. They cannot do that. I am also interested in getting the answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that there are many countries which will abide by their word. Let us see which ones will stand by their word.

Mr. R. T. Paget: France?

Mr. Foot: There is the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] These matters will probably be reported in the United States. Sometimes I am very critical of the Government of the United States, but I hope that it will be noted that when I happen to suggest that the United States Government will stand by their word on this subject I am received with jeers from the Conservative benches. Hon. Members opposite want to laugh the proposition out of court. So there are hon. Gentleman opposite who are not prepared to say in this House that they think that the United States will abide by the pledge that it gave to the United Nations a few months ago. I think it will.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Dean Acheson, like some hon. Members in this House, has said that he believes that the decision by the Security Council was ultra vires and illegal? If this is thought to be so by the American Congress, it may be that the United States will not keep its word.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Dean Acheson is not the Government of the United States.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Neither is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foot: I hope that it will not be such a simple case of mistaken identity as that. I am not quoting myself on these matters. I am quoting the authoritative decision of the United States Government given in the Security Council after a decision reached by the United States President and the United States Cabinet. I should have thought that that was good enough for anybody. What is

the position of the United States? Mr. Dean Acheson takes a different view of the matters. He takes a different view of the legality of it. The right hon. Gentleman did not even dare to raise that question again. It looks as though that mare's nest has been destroyed for ever. Lord Salisbury tried to raise it in another place. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not press the question of the legality, and I think that he was very wise not to do so. I think that was very discriminating of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the President of the United States does not make the laws of the United States? They have to be made by Congress. The Congress is extremely doubtful as to the legality of this measure, and so am I, for that matter. If my hon. Friend really thinks that President Johnson in his present difficulties is going to give this a high priority, I think he is rather wrong.

Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend says that Congress is very dubious about the legality of this measure which has been passed by the Security Council. That is not correct. Certain Congressmen, like Dean Acheson, have raised doubts—

Mr. Paget: He is not a Congressman.

Mr. Foot: I know he is not. I said certain Congressmen like Dean Acheson. Trying to deal with so many interruptions by hon. Gentlemen makes my speech rather like running an obstacle race, there are so many interventions to surmount.
It does not seem to me such an outlandish proposition to quote the decision of the United States Cabinet given at the Security Council. I am not contesting—and not even Mr. Dean Acheson—that the United States Government have made this declaration. I should have thought it perfectly feasible for anybody to cite it as proof of what is the view of the United States Government on these matters. I do not always agree with the United States, but because I disagree with them on many things that does not mean that I disagree with them on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who, by their general conduct, apparently do not give a straw for the United Nations or its general future—

Sir Cyril Osborne: That is not true.

Mr. Foot: —are not even prepared to accept the fact that, first, the United States Government—and I was citing different Governments—would act in such a way that sanctions would work—the second point of the right hon. Gentleman. Personally, I think that the United States will stand by their word. I think they will carry out the policy to which they are committed. I think they may have debates in the Congress about it, and Mr. Dean Acheson may raise doubts, but I believe that, having given their word on this matter, the United States will carry it out. I do not know who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, and failing anyone on the Opposition Front Bench I would be quite satisfied to have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and perhaps he will tell us very plainly whether he thinks that the United States will stand by their word on this matter; or, failing that, may we have an authoritative statement about this from the Opposition Front Bench?
Let us look at some of the other countries which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Germany. Germany is not a member of the United Nations and is therefore not in the same position, but I would have thought that it was perfectly open to the diplomacy of this country and of the United States and of the other countries which have joined in passing the Resolution to make representations of the most strenuous kind to the German Government that they should associate themselves with all the other civilised countries in the world in carrying out this policy. I think it would be a grave disservice to the policy of this country if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this debate were to seek to incite Germany, among other countries, to defy the United Nations and to defy the general policy agreed by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Government, having failed to get anywhere with the German Government on support costs, will be able to persuade them of anything?

Mr. Foot: I am in favour of reducing the burden which this country has to bear in Germany—for other reasons

which it would be improper to discuss now. But if that intervention is meant to indicate that it is difficult to put pressure on the Germans, it would be an added reason for doing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] We could say we will withdraw our troops from Germany if Germany does not carry out the policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"] I think that would be a good way to do it, but all I am proposing in this instance is that not merely this country but all the other countries assembled together to pass that resolution should use diplomatic pressure and say to the German Government that they hope that they will abide by the general sense of the United Nations resolution. That seems to be a proper request, and only those who wish to sabotage the United Nations will invite them to do anything differently. The same comment applies to the Swiss.
Extremely difficult questions are involved in the Zambian position. Nobody can deny that. It is quite right that the Government should make provision in the Order to try to exclude Zambia from having to bear the heaviest economic burdens. It is an indication of the desire that the Government have had throughout the whole of this affair that, despite all the difficulties, we should take such steps as we can to protect Zambia from the repercussions of having to carry out this general policy. I do not complain that exceptions are made in the Order precisely for that purpose. That is no argument that sanctions will not be carried out.
Nobody can say for certain whether sanctions will be effective in the end in securing the overthrow of the Smith régime, which is what I certainly desire. But it is a great disservice to this country, to the United Nations and to freedom for people to minimise the effect of the sanctions. Hon. Members may have read in the Sunday Telegraph the week before last an account of what happened to Smith's tobacco crop over the past year. It appears that 70 per cent. was unsold. I know that some hon. Members opposite do not believe this to be true, and I do not know whether it is true, but it was evidence given by a reputable reporter, reporting—[HON. MEMBERS: "From Lusaka."] Yes, he was reporting from Lusaka, but what is wrong in reporting from Lusaka about these matters? People


in Lusaka know a good deal more about them than do some right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is out of order on this Order to discuss the previous sanctions.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is a valid argument to say that if the previous sanctions, which were partially ineffective because they were not mandatory on all members of the United Nations, resulted in 70 per cent. of the tobacco crop being unsold, then if we can make the sanctions more effective they are likely to have even more influence in the future.
I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who wish to play Smith's game all the time. He wishes to say to the world and his own people that all the economic action which has previously been taken and is being taken will have no effect. There are many of these public relations officers on the other side of the House only too willing to play his game, and no doubt they have been well paid for it, too.

Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to say that there are public relations officers on this side of the House well paid for what they are doing?

Mr. Foot: Public relations officers who are poorly paid, then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) intended to reflect on the integrity of any individual hon. Member.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order. I understood the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to say that hon. Members of this House were paid to say certain things on behalf of someone. If so, I am sure that he is wrong, and if he did not intend it, then I am sure that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Foot: I would say that there are many hon. Members opposite, particularly from the conduct which I have seen in the last 20 minutes, who so far from coming to this debate to debate the public interest, have come solely to pursue their

public relations on behalf of Smith and his friends. I withdraw the charge that they are paid anything for it—even the right hon. Member for Streatham. Maybe they do it for nothing. But it is a disgraceful exhibition when we should be discussing the public interest and discussing how we are to carry out policies which have been approved by the House and by the country.
I have dealt with two of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman on the question of loss of control—

Mr. Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? Is it not disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman makes these accusations against various Members on these benches but makes his withdrawal in such an ungracious and disgraceful way? Cannot we have some protection, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am willing to protect hon. Members at all times when I know what it is about.

Mr. Foot: I come to the third point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which I acknowledge is the strongest part of his argument and one in regard to which the Government also will have to ackknowledge the difficulties in the future. It is one on which, in my judgment, they will have to make changes and developments in their policies. This third point is that, apart from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Zambia and the rest, the main difficulty in pursuing the policy giving rise to the Order is that South Africa will not be prepared to operate it and will sustain what the right hon. Gentleman calls and what South Africa calls normal trade. That is the right hon. Gentleman's third count against these proposals and the reason why he says they cannot produce a successful outcome.
This is far and away the most powerful argument the right hon. Gentleman has. I do not myself regard it as a reason for abandoning the policy, but it is a reason, in my view, for believing that the Government will on some future occasion have to come to the House with further measures to deal with this situation.
I have always said this and I believe that it should not be disguised. I have no opportunity now to debate the general issue as to whether we shall in future months require to carry out a much more


extensive policy of economic sanctions, perhaps, against South Africa, but I acknowledge to the right hon. Gentleman that this is the most powerful argument he has made and it is one which the Government do not answer sufficiently by saying, "We will not discuss that; we will try to push it into the background and think that it will not arise". It will happen, of course. South Africa may think that it is in its interest to sustain the régime in Southern Rhodesia and it may, therefore, give the régime all the assistance it can by normal trade and, perhaps, by abnormal trade.
If this country and the United Nations are to carry through the policies to which they are committed, that is, for the prevention of permanent minority rule in Southern Rhodesia and in the South of the African continent, the British Government will have to proceed from the policies they have already adopted to further policies. We cannot discuss that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot pursue those policies now.

Mr. Foot: I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I did not wish to present the argument about it. I was merely citing the three points which the right hon. Member for Barnet made and acknowledging that the answer to the third part of his argument cannot be given in this debate now but will have to be given, in my belief, by Government action in the months to come.
There are many of us on this side who, when we started on this operation, said that a British Government who wished to hold up their head in the world, who wished to retain the Commonwealth and to retain an association with many other free countries, had to pursue a policy of denying the right of the Smith régime to continue. That is our policy, and we believe that many further steps will have to be taken to that end. Indeed, I think that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is bound to become more and more intermingled with the problems of South Africa itself. If we deny that, we deny the realities of the situation. This is why I say that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third charge cannot be given now but will have to be given by action later on.

That does not mean that I do not think that it is right for the Government to proceed with the measures. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that they would be disastrous, that we should pursue the alternative of discussions and agreements. We know what those words mean. There is not only the fact that we have already had attempts at discussion and agreement that have proved unavailing, despite the fact that on the "Tiger" propositions were made to the Smith régime which, in my opinion, went far beyond what should have been offered and which, according to some experts like Sir Edgar Whitehead, might have meant minority rule in Rhodesia until the end of the century.
Therefore, I am glad that those propositions are now withdrawn. That is the policy not merely of this Government but of the whole Commonwealth, and the right hon. Gentleman should have faced some of the problems, just as I have tried to face them. I have not tried to skirt round the question of South Africa and pretend that it does not exist. In his speech today, the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that the whole question of our relations with the Commonwealth does not exist.
That is why I say in conclusion, as I insisted at the beginning, that the vote which hon. Members opposite cast tonight is not merely a vote, according to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, against the measures' technicalities but is a vote against the policy that has been accepted by the whole Commonwealth—not only the African territories, but Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All those countries have supported the policy; all of them agreed the same procedure at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not yet appreciated in what a state of miserable isolation they are. They have hardly any supporters in the world on their policies. [Interruption.] Yes—they have a few. They have Portugal and South Africa, and for year after year we had to live through the squalid indignity of seeing our representatives at the United Nations voting with those countries that maintain slave states in their territories.
They should not be fighting in the debate to restore that position. That is the position they want the country to be placed in, but I am very glad that the situation has been changed. When this question of Southern Rhodesia was considered at the United Nations, instead of being in such a tiny minority, this country was almost for the first time with the vast majority of the civilised countries of the world who wish to see the rights of people established, whatever the colour of their skins.
That is what we are fighting for and that is what the United Nations is working for. The right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite came part way on the journey. It took a lot of dragging, but some came part of the way, some agreed that they would give constitutions to territories on the basis of majority rule. They came part of the way, but it is a sad and wretched spectacle to see them skedaddling back along the road as fast as they do now.
The right hon. Gentleman does not look very happy about it. I will say this for him. As I watched him today, he reminded me of the figure in the French Revolution who was following a great crowd around and somebody asked him, "Why do you follow that mob?" He replied, "I've got to—I am its leader". That is the right hon. Gentleman. He therefore did not put his case with his usual effectiveness. He has to go along with that mob, and I am sorry for him.
I hope that the rest of the House will make quite clear that this country not merely votes for the sanctions and is prepared to carry the Orders but is determined to see the United Nations' policy carried through to a successful conclusion.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The Government have committed themselves to a long, sterile and losing battle. All Rhodesia's neighbours—South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique—have made it clear that, for one reason or another, they are not prepared to break off economic relations with Rhodesia. Other countries will no doubt find excuses to follow suit. If they cannot produce any valid reasons, they will resume trade through the back door, through some intermediary in South Africa.
We shall then be asked to put the screw on to South Africa; and we shall have to refuse because we cannot afford it. When we refuse to take this further step to which this policy is logically leading us, the rest of the world will wind up sanctions altogether; and the whole policy on which these Orders are based will completely collapse.
The sanctions proposed in the Orders are part of a policy—a major part, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear—which will inevitably lead to failure and humiliation not only for Britain but for the United Nations. These sanctions will further aggravate the injury to our balance of payments which has already been caused. When it comes to meeting our prior obligations to Malta or to South Arabia, the Government plead poverty. At the same time, they seem prepared to pour away ever-increasing sums in this futile and ruinous struggle.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested that we on this side were challenging the United Nations. I think that he used the word "sabotage". I would say to him that the sanctions proposed in the Orders are, like all other mandatory sanctions, quite illegal. They are contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. In order to impose these sanctions, which have to be authorised under Chapter VII of the Charter—the Security Council must be satisfied that there is a threat to international peace.
I have many times asked—and I hope that on this occasion I shall get an answer, because the legality of the Orders depend upon it—whether the Government will tell us which country is threatened by Rhodesia. Let them drop the pretence and admit that the Orders and their whole policy of mandatory sanctions are based upon a lie. Will they also explain not just what the Orders contain, as the right hon. Gentleman did, but what the Government hope to achieve by these additional sanctions?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, the Government have committed themselves up to the hilt not to negotiate with any illegal régime and not to grant independence in any circumstances before there is majority African rule. But do they not realise that no Government which could conceivably come to power


in Salisbury would ever be allowed to give up U.D.I. except in return for the prospect of early independence? Still less could they agree to immediate African rule. Unless the British Government are prepared to soldier on with mandatory sanctions for another 10 years or more they will have to make up their mind to talk to the illegal régime and they will have to renew their offer of independence on the basis of the six principles. Sooner or later the Government will be forced to reopen negotiations on a sensible basis. Until they do, they can expect no support from us for their disastrous policy.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The effect of sanctions so far has been to reduce the gross national product of Rhodesia by about 4 per cent.—very roughly the same figure as has been achieved at home by Her Majesty's Government by other means. It has also been to produce some unemployment, mostly in Zambia and Malawi, but in this, again, Her Majesty's Government have been less successful in Rhodesia than they have in Britain.
What will these mandatory sanctions which we are now being asked to impose do? Their target is £30 million of exports. This is what we are trying to stop. For that purpose we are putting ourselves to a charge of not less than £120 million a year. It is not a very advantageous or proportionate undertaking. The injury which these Orders are designed to do is very little injury to Rhodesia and a lot of injury to us.
What about the effect on others? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) asked what would other nations do. This is where legality becomes important, because while the legality of the United Nations Resolutions is in question, while the challenge which will doubtless come to it in the Court of International Justice remains sub judice, what other countries will take action on this?
I say right away, as one who can claim to have some knowledge of international law, that I believe these Resolutions to be quite illegal. I will not give only one reason, the very simplest. I do not believe that the founders of the United Nations designed that organisation as an instru-

ment to enable a colonial Power to enforce its rule upon a rebellious Colony. That would have been in the spirit of the Holy Alliance rather than the United Nations. I do not believe that the United Nations Charter can be twisted to perform so alien a purpose.
Whether one is right on this or not the question is under challenge, and will shortly be under challenge in the International Court at the Hague. Portugal, South Africa or someone, will take it there. Meanwhile what happens in America? The American President does not have the same control over his Congress that Her Majesty's Government has over this Parliament. I cannot see Congress, which is extremely reluctant about this, taking action before the legality is settled. Nor can I see the American President, who has plenty of problems at home, making this demand on Congress a very high priority. So what will happen? This trade which we are refusing will go on being collected by the Americans, as it was last year.
The other country is France. Will France play in this game? We know very well that she will not. Far and away the most important of all—because she really has the keys to this problem—is South Africa. South Africa has herself been challenged by sanctions, and certainly regards the United Nations and the forces there as a threat to her existence. If the Government really feel that South Africa will stand aside and see a United Nations victory in her part of the continent over a neighbour of hers, then they are whistling in the dark to keep up their courage.
It is quite an impossible policy for South Africa. After all, the target here is £30 million. It could not conceivably succeed by more than half. The absolute limit of the sums involved here is about £15 million. The amount is so small.
Last October I discussed these various problems with a group of South African businessmen. The chairman turned to me and said, "Look round this table. I think there are nine here. The men sitting around this table represent companies whose sales are more than twice the gross national product of --Rhodesia—that is £232 million". He said, "The kind of sums that are needed here are those which we could lose in the 'sundry creditors' item in our balance sheets, and


do you think that we are not going to do so?"—[An HON. MEMBER: What does that prove?] —It proves that these sanctions will not work. It proves that we will suffer, and Zambia will suffer, to the extent of well over £100 million a year, but Rhodesia will not suffer, because the people who have the power to deal with this will not allow it to happen—so we pay.
Finally, I give this warning. The enforcing of laws of this kind does not have the sympathy of the people. We just will not get juries to convict a man of helping Rhodesia, because on our juries there will be at least some who will think it is the right thing to do. It is very difficult to put in criminal legislation something which is against the sympathies of the people who are required to operate and work it.
All that we can do, all that we are doing, is to delay the industrial revolution which is taking place in Rhodesia. If that industrial revolution goes ahead, then African rule inevitably goes with it. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks what about South Africa. South Africa knows very well exactly what I am saying. That is why she has been at enormous pains to see that in South Africa the industrial black proletariat is always in the minority. Nowhere do the South Africans allow the black proletariat to become a majority because they know what would happen if they did. In the mines, which is the only place in which most of the workers are black, only immigrants on a six months' contract are allowed so that they do not become part of an African proletariat in South Africa. South Africa recognises what would happen if there happened in South Africa what we are preventing from happening in Rhodesia—that is, an industrial revolution based on an African proletariat. Within Rhodesia industrial revolution inevitably means an overwhelming black African majority industrial proletariat; and no one here can point out to me an industrial revolution which was not taken over by its proletariat when it got under way.
All that we are doing is stopping this development, which perfectly suits the Rhodesia Front whose leadership is basically a squire-archy of the countryside, jealous and anxious about the industrial

advance in Salisbury and Bulawayo. If she allowed it to go ahead, that is how the Rhodesia Front will fall. It will fall because it does not have the support of rising industrialists. By stopping those rising industrialists, we are doing exactly what the Smith régime wants: we are ruining the prospects of the African.
I have spent twenty years in trying to serve the interests of the Africans in Rhodesia. I am in rebellion on this because I see the Government destroying everything which I have tried to achieve.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: May I revert to the clever, bitter and vindictive speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I wish he would realise that speeches like the speech which he delivered tonight do more than anything else to drive moderate opinion in Rhodesia behind Mr. Ian Smith.
The hon. Gentleman said that the views which he advanced were representative of the views in this country. I do not believe that they are representative either of the views of this country or indeed of the views of other hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Gentleman honestly and sincerely believes that, I challenge him to resign his seat and fight a by-election in a marginal constituency on that one issue. I guarantee that I know what the result would be.
I take the view that this Order stems from an illegal resolution of the United Nations. This is a view put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). But, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it is a view which has been propounded by the surviving founders of the United Nations Charter at the San Francisco Conference. Both Lord Salisbury and Dean Acheson, who represented their respective countries when the Charter was founded, have made it quite clear that, in their view, the resolution of the United Nations, which purported to he under Chapter 7, was illegal. Not only is there doubt on that head, but also under Article 27(3) there cannot be any abstention from voting on such a resolution. In fact, there were two abstaining votes on this resolution.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, whatever the views expressed in this connection. it is the view of Hans Kelsen, probably the most distinguished of all international lawyers, that such a resolution was not illegal?

Mr. Turton: I take the view of those who drafted the Charter even more than the view which the hon. Member put forward.
What is the Government's explanation on this point? This was raised last Tuesday in another place. If I may paraphrase his explanation, the Lord Chancellor justified the illegality by saying that the Security Council is largely influenced by political considerations and is a political organ and not a law court. What have we been doing in making our representations to the Security Council under Article 2(7) if the Security Council has no recourse to law but is merely a political organ?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: If one has to determine whether there is a threat of war, is it wrong to apply political considerations in determining it? Surely it is a wholly political consideration.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member usually gets his facts right. It is, in fact, a threat to peace and not to war. I should have thought that one would use legal considerations to determine that fact. If there is any doubt about this, I am quite happy to have it referred to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. I am satisfied that those who drafted the Charter knew what they intended.
I would like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions about some details of the Order. I can understand that those who support selective mandatory sanctions may wish rightly, following their policy, to place heavy penalties on British subjects who transgress their sanctions policy, but I doubt very much whether it is wise or right for a British Government to draft an Order penalising Rhodesians who are carrying out normal trading in their country. Articles 2(6,b) and 4(2,b) deal with the export from and the import of goods to Southern Rhodesia Do they apply to Rhodesians who transact business not only with the

United Kingdom but with all other countries? If so, do they apply to transactions in pursuance of contracts entered into before the Order came into existence?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to the asbestos which was ordered by Germany prior to the United Nations resolution and which, according to the Germans, forms a legal contract. Are we in the position, therefore, that Rhodesians who carry out that Order for asbestos for Germany will be committing an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment?
It is a grave error for this House to impose penalties, which clearly cannot be enforced, on Rhodesians who have no voice in this Parliament. They have no way of protesting about these punishments which are being levelled at them. Quite clearly, these are useless parts of the Order. No one can enforce them. I hope that the Attorney-General will explain to us the full effect of the Order on Rhodesian citizens who carry out normal trading.
What the Government are trying to do in the House tonight is perfectly clear. The object of the Order is to create economic chaos and unemployment in Rhodesia. Any Rhodesian citizen who tries to save his country from economic chaos or to keep his African employees in employment will be liable, under the Order, to two years' imprisonment and a fine of unspecified amount. That, I believe, will again drive all moderate opinion towards the extreme Right wing of the Rhodesia Front Party.
I beg the Government to think a little about the effect of that policy in Central Africa. As I see it, it will not succeed. I do not believe that the sanctions policy will succeed except, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has said, that it will cause them some 4 per cent. loss, and just the amount of damage which the British Government have done to the British economy will be done to the Rhodesian economy.
Our exports to Rhodesia will suffer a great deal more. Our markets in Rhodesia will be lost, and other countries like Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, the Portuguese colonies, South Africa, and, in answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the United States of America, are gaining all the time. A great deal of


trade is being conducted with United States citizens.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I can assure my right hon. Friend that that is the case. My own company has been doing business with Rhodesia, but the merchandise which we cannot sell there now is being sold there by Americans, through our own agents.

Mr. Turton: There will be no great damage to Rhodesia, but there will be tremendous damage to this country amounting, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton said, to £100 to £120 million.
What the Government intend to do is create chaos in Rhodesia. What will happen if they succeed? Quite clearly, if we create economic chaos in Rhodesia, it will not stop there. It will spread across the borders to Zambia, Malawi and Kenya. What they are aiming to do is light a forest fire in very combustible material in Africa. That is a very dangerous policy to pursue.
Even at this late stage, I beg the Government to withdraw these Orders. If they will not withdraw them, I hope that they will at least do what I asked them to do when I last spoke and appoint a Royal Commission to go out to Rhodesia and work out a constitution which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. However, that Royal Commission should not be sent out until the Government receive an assurance from those at present in power in Rhodesia that they can travel freely throughout the country and ask questions of all from whom they wish to take evidence.
In his last speech, the Commonwealth Secretary gave an indication, later withdrawn by the Prime Minister, that he would favour some new thoughts about a constitution. If a gesture like that was made, even at this late hour, we would win back the moderate opinion in Rhodesia that has been lost by this senseless, savage policy of sanctions.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: We have listened only to two speeches from the other side commending these Orders. The first was from the Commonwealth Secretary, who said it as if he hardly

believed it. The second was a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
The only valid argument which seems to have emerged is that this is necessary in support of the Charter of the United Nations. I think that it was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who said that we, the British nation, cannot tear up the Charter. If that is what we said, I concede his point. He is quite right. However, if he thinks that, he must argue out his views both with the Lord Chancellor and with Lord Caradon, because that is not what they say.
The Charter of the United Nations lays down clearly the conditions under which mandatory sanctions may be applied. I do not want to quote overmuch here. We have had one quotation tonight which is perfectly sound stating that the Security Council, except on a procedural matter, cannot impose sanctions save with the concurring votes of the permanent members. Those concurring votes were not received. Therefore, clearly under the Charter of the United Nations, there can be no doubt that these mandatory sanctions are illegal.
I concede that there is a contrary argument, and I put it. The argument used on the opposite side, and used by Lord Caradon and by the Lord Chancellor, is the very reverse, that the Charter is not sacrosanct, that the Security Council is a political body or, as I heard one authority say, that the United Nations can do anything it likes. That is a possible argument. However, if that argument is used, do not talk about the sanctity of the Charter, because the sanctity of the Charter means nothing. It was this Government, when they took this case to the United Nations, who adopted the latter view, that the Charter was waste paper, but that the United Nations Security Council had universal power to do what it wished in the event of what it considered to be a threat to peace.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should make up his mind as to which argument he is using. He cannot use both. On the Charter I have quoted one example only, but in fact there are three breaches of the Charter.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. Gentleman argues that case, he must deal with


the argument of the Lord Chancellor in another place, which completely disposed of the legal arguments he has just advanced.

Mr. King: I have dealt with the single point I seek to make, and I think that I have established it, that we are not acting in accord with the Charter. I do not concede the Lord Chancellor's argument, although I take the point he made that the Charter of the United Nations was not sacrosanct.

Mr. Paget: rose

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose

Mr. King: Oh, very well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. To which hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) giving way?

Mr. King: To the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has a very excellent legal precedent for action under the United Nations Charter in the Korean War. A permanent member did not concur in that action, but the hon. Gentleman's own Government supported the Korean was as a legal war.

Mr. King: The important point is simply this. I have advanced the single argument, which I repeat, that what is being done is not in accord with the Charter of the United Nations. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has argued that Government policy must accord with the Charter of the United Nations. I ask hon. Members opposite to make up their minds which argument they are using, because they cannot argue both ways.
I move on to a second point, not a point of law, but of substance, of which the House should take note. If this were indeed a dispute between nation—an international dispute—there is a clear condition, again under the Charter of the United Nations, that the nation against which the charge is made should have right of access to the Security Council to put its case. That condition also was breached.
Further—this is the more discreditable—Mr. Smith's Government wrote 14 letters, one each to every member of the Security Council and one to the Secretary General of the United Nations, asking that he might be so received. We were informed on behalf of the Government by a Minister at the Foreign Office that those letters were never received. We were informed a month later by the Secretary General, or on his authority, that he was very sorry but the letter had been lost. We have never been told what happened to the other 13 letters.
If the argument as to the United Nations had not been raised in the debate, it was not my intention to raise it. I seek to make the point only that, whatever defence the Government may have for the Orders, a defence which I believe to be wrong, it would be wholly wrong of them—indeed, it would be impossible—to argue that they would be proceeding from law on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations or that the Security Council has done anything other than behave badly in this matter.
The debate has been allowed to go wide. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to discuss the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not have said that. It is very dangerous to call the attention of the Chair to what might be out of order.

Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside the point of the United Nations, the argument which is adduced—this is true—is that the House by a majority has committed itself to sanctions. That I concede. Then the Front Bench will seek to argue that because that is so it must be logical to escalate the dispute. This is a similar argument in principle which could be used by the Americans in Vietnam—because we have started a war we must escalate it to the furthest possible point. This is not an argument which I can accept. I should have thought that the spirit of the United Nations was that where one is involved in an issue, where war is feared, our duty is not to escalate it, but to mediate, to conciliate, and to seek to the last moment agreement between those concerned. I should have thought that it did not need arguing that this was the


first duty of this House and of the United Nations in all circumstances.
What are the Government trying to do? It is a facile and attractive argument to say that they are trying to make sanctions succeed. What are sanctions? There are in Rhodesia 220,000 Europeans and 4 million Africans. When the Government say that they are imposing sanctions, let us turn this into more ordinary language. They are seeking so to disrupt trade as to create unemployment among 4 million Africans. The Government regard unemployment as a universal cure. If there is an economic crisis here, create unemployment. If there is a defence problem in Malta, create unemployment. If there is a Commonwealth problem in Rhodesia, create unemployment.
These things are all the more painful than is sometimes appreciated when there is great unemployment. It is better to use an accurate word to describe what the Government are doing. What they are trying to do when they use this measure is to create hunger, possibly even to the point of starvation, among 4 million Africans. Indeed, it will be more than 4 million if we think of the people in Malawi and Zambia. They are doing this in the hope that the pressure brought by these hungry Africans on the well-fed 200,000 Europeans will induce the Government there to change their minds. A more unlikely theme I have seldom heard.
I ask the Government to pause for a few moments and think what their objective is. There are two possibilities. The first is to hurt, and in this I concede that they have in certain measure been successful. The other is to convert. If they are seeking to convert opinion in Rhodesia, as opposed to having a desire to hurt people there, they have been wholly unsuccessful. Indeed, as the weeks and months go by the degree of the lack of success becomes daily more evident. In other words, they have lost their way because they have never defined what their final objective is.
How do we convert people, and if we seek to be successful what is the nature of the success? Are they seeking another Government in Rhodesia? Are they seeking chaos there? Are they trying to create hunger and strife in Rhodesia? I do not think that they are, but what I

do think is that they have not thought out what they are seeking to do.
What is this policy? The Lord Chancellor is reported as saying in another place, with a measure of pride, that the sugar crop in Rhodesia had been ploughed in. In a world in which millions are starving, if he be right, let us in this House realise that this is not a matter for pride. It is something about which we ought to hang our heads in shame. [Interruption.] I look forward to the Attorney-General answering some of the legal points which I have raised, because so far no legal authority on that Front Bench has sought to answer them.
I turn now to the narrower point of the Order itself which seeks to extend to British subjects without citizenship or to the United Kingdom citizens resident abroad the penalties which previously have been confined to United Kingdom citizens resident in this country. What have the Government in mind? Let us consider the case of a single country trading with Rhodesia. For example, at this moment British subjects in Malawi are trading with Rhodesia. They are not now subject to a penalty because they are citizens not resident in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, after the Order is passed such a person will be guilty of a crime if he continues, whilst in Malawi—perhaps on behalf of a Malawi firm—to trade with Rhodesia. It is relevant to this point that the Prime Minister of Malawi has said openly that he intends and wishes to continue to trade with Rhodesia. What is a British subject resident in Malawi supposed to do? Is he to obey the laws and wishes of the country in which he resides, or is he to suffer two years' imprisonment on returning home?
There are many British citizens working in South African firms, holding British passports and presumably abiding willy-nilly by the laws of South Africa. Any such person—perhaps a person who has worked for 20 or 30 years for a South African firm and is shortly entitled to a pension—is to be told, at a few days' notice, "Either throw up your job, because your firm is trading with Rhodesia, or when you return to the United Kingdom you will be subject to two years' imprisonment or a fine". Is that a reasonable or practical thing to say? What will such a person do? Either


he will seek South African citizenship or he will never return to England. Do the Government really want to achieve such a result?
Let us consider the case of an ordinary English girl—and there are thousands of them—who is travelling round the world, as many do nowadays, seeking a job as a typist with a South African firm which happens to trade with Rhodesia. If she gets the job, when she returns to this country she will be guilty of a criminal offence. Tens of thousands of people from all over the world will be in that position. The Attorney-General ought to tell us precisely how he intends to deal with that sort of case.
A major argument against these Orders, in the narrower sense, is that they are either impracticable or cruel. I implore the Government not to concentrate merely on how many tens of thousands of pounds we have robbed Rhodesia of, or of how much hunger we have brought to that country, or how far we have reduced its trade or how far we can impoverish it or made it a nation of beggars. Let them think whether their actions are taking us towards the achievement of a worthwhile objective. Above all, let them think of the nature of that objective, and what sort of Rhodesia would emerge if these policies, which in my view are disastrous, were to succeed.

10.14 p.m.

Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre: Listening to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), one got the impression that this was a great moral issue. Reference has been made to the resolution of the Security Council, which has also been before the General Assembly. I want to know how many countries have ratified that resolution. To my knowledge only four countries have done so. What is even more startling perhaps, none of the African countries adjacent to Rhodesia has seen fit to ratify the Security Council resolution. That includes Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi.
When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made his impassioned speech, did he not realise or take into consideration that none of the African States bordering on Rhodesia shares his views? If they did, why did they not vote or do something?

The hon. Members comes here and makes an impassioned speech which will upset very many settled principles in Africa to no purpose whatsoever, simply to satisfy his own ego. [Interruption.] Let us go a little further—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been an orderly debate so far. Hon. Gentlemen must learn to listen to what they do not agree with.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: Let us take it further. Is it not a fact that at present the two States that are trying to come to terms in regard to mutual realisation and mutual respect with Southern Rhodesia are Zambia and Malawi? Is it not a fact that 250,000 people from Malawi are working in Southern Rhodesia, and that if there was any implementation of the Security Council resolution they would be unemployed and shot back to Malawi with no future whatever? When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale makes these impassioned speeches, they may go down in the Welsh coalmines, but for heaven's sake—

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should declare his interest in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to enable us to evaluate the expert knowledge of those who speak on this subject, would it be in order for hon. Members to declare their commercial connections with Rhodesia and South Africa?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rule of the House about declaring a personal interest.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have declared my interest before, and will declare it again. Most of my family live out there, but as an individual I have no financial interests there whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope that I have made my first point.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member makes a personal attack on another hon. Member and it is refuted by direct reply, ought he not to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman who raised the point raised it in general, but I think that the hon.


Member who shouted across the Floor "Declare your interest" should be satisfied and should withdraw.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was making a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I asked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would declare his interest. He did so, and I am satisfied.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, having suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a personal interest, now having declared that he is satisfied, that ought to be enough.

Mr. Orme: I withdraw what I said.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn what he said.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Since we are having points of order tonight, Mr. Speaker, is it not generally considered out of order to impute dishonourable motives to hon. Members? Did you—

Mr. Speaker: I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman, from his experience, is used to political criticism. I have heard political criticism tonight.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect, if you will allow me to complete my sentence, Mr. Speaker, I will explain to you what I was referring to. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) came here and made an impassioned speech in order to satisfy his own ego—or, as he called it, "eego". I would suggest, with respect, that that would be imputing to my hon. Friend a motive less than worthy of him.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is unduly sensitive, and I further think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: I will, if I may, come now to the Order itself. I wish particularly to draw attention to Article 10(5), where it says:

Proceedings for an offence against this Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions…
I will not bother to read the rest. I want to go back to what I asked in a previous debate, and that is, how far does that paragraph affect the Government themselves? For instance, in Salisbury at the moment are offices of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Is that going to be closed down? We have Thomas Cook there. Is that going to be closed down? Throughout Rhodesia there are petrol stations run by British Petroleum. Are they to be closed down? In fact, throughout Rhodesia there are organisations directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government; they are running at the moment, but are they to be shut down, or are they to be exempt under that Article 10(5)—unless proceedings are instituted by the Board of Trade, then they can go on?
I particularly want to ask this question again about asbestos. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, I raised this question in a previous debate. If you look at the Schedule you will see that in Part I asbestos is very carefully defined as "heading No. 25.24." Quite honestly, I do not know what that means, but if my information is correct, up to the present the British Government have made exemption for asbestos to come into this country for a particular firm, because otherwise that firm would cease to trade unless it spent £2 million on the conversion of its machinery. I made this statement in our last debate. I challenged the Government. They did not seem to make any answer.
I do say that it is absolutely silly, with all this moral rectitude by the Government, if they allow B.O.A.C. and Thomas Cook and British Petroleum to continue trading in Rhodesia as they have been. Where is the sense of this? I am afraid I must reiterate what my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, that this question of Rhodesia has now become a private, personal vendetta. As has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, if the Government succeed, all they will do is to put 250,000 Africans out of work. If that is their idea of promoting security and progress south of the Zambesi, all I can say is, God help them.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: A theme has been running through the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which must not go unrebutted in this forum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Forum?"]. It must not go unrebutted in this House.
It has been repeatedly suggested by hon. Members opposite that in passing the Orders tonight the House would be compounding an international act of illegality. This must not go unchallenged. In the first place, one may well ask on what authority this is regarded as an illegal act. The authority of the absent right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has been cited as leading in this matter. We have had the authority of one distinguished statesman in the United States. Apparently that is regarded as sufficient to drive the Government out of their course in following the decision of the United Nations Security Council. The opinions of two gentlemen have been put forward as sufficient. On the other side, however, we have had the opinion of the greatest living legal authority on the United Nations Charter, Hans Kelsen. This was described by hon. Members opposite as irrelevent and apparently beneath their notice.
But this important point has been dealt with in another place on at least two occasions by the Lord Chancellor. As he rightly said as recently as this afternoon, on a constitutional document of such profound political importance as the Charter, there can be many legal views. But the basic point which we have to consider is whether, as a country, having put before the United Nations a request for a certain course of action which we considered to be legal, we should then turn round and say that this course of action is illegal. What kind of statesmanship would that be?
A further point to which we ought to give some consideration is whether we should substitute our judgment of what is internationally legal for the expressed view of all members of the Security Council on that occasion.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I am very interested in the point which the hon. Member is making. Would it not be wise to ask for an

opinion of the International Court on its legality?

Mr. Maclennan: As we have no doubts about legality of this matter, clearly the onus is not upon this country. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that such an opinion may be sought. Until it is sought we have to abide by the decision of the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we are members of the United Nations and signed the Charter of the United Nations. As such we are bound to carry out the decisions of the Security Council delivered under Chapter VII, and we must not flinch from that.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member has cited a number of precedents for his point of view. Could he answer the question put earlier from this side of the House? The whole of this legal argument hangs on the interpretation of Chapter VII. Which country does Rhodesia threaten?

Mr. Maclennan: My reading of Chapter VII—and I do not offer myself as the last legal authority, as some hon. Members opposite appear to claim for themselves—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have reproved one side of the House. Now I must reprove the other. We must listen to arguments even if we do not like them.

Mr. Maclennan: My reading of Chapter VII is that there must be a threat to peace. If there is a dispute, albeit an internal dispute, does not that constitute a threat to international peace? Does anyone deny that the Congo situation constituted a threat to peace? Did not the internal dispute, if one likes, in Korea constitute a threat to peace? Did not the Cyprus situation? We have heard from the Opposition the most extraordinary logic-chopping on this subject.
We have formed a clear view and are entitled, under Chapter VII, to ask for this measure in order to bring to an end a situation which we find intolerable, as all right-minded people do, for it is a moral issue. We are tonight seeking to give a lead to other countries to ensure that we attempt to make sanctions effective. But the question of whether or not sanctions are effective is immaterial to the question before us tonight. It is astonishing that the question of their


effectiveness should have been raised. It is wide of the mark.

Mr. Goodhew: If it is immaterial, why did the preamble read out by the Secretary of State from the United Nations resolution refer to effective and selective sanctions?

Mr. Maclennan: We are not debating the Security Council resolution. We are debating these Orders, to which we intend to give effect. If the Opposition choose tonight to go into the lobbies against the Government on this, they must realise the significance of what they are doing. According to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), they are not considering the merits of the Orders. He said that they are attacking the Orders not because they oppose them but because they are opposed to the Government's policy.
That policy is now also the policy of the United Nations and in opposing the Orders the Opposition are opposing the United Nations. It is a clear extension and it is one from which the country will draw its conclusions. In the Rhodesia

situation, we have a real opportunity to make the international organisation which the founders at San Francisco set up into a really effective body for the maintenance of international peace. We have an opportunity, with these Orders, to affix our personal stamp to that policy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the United Nations General Assembly, which can only make a recommendation, none the less has passed, by a very large majority, a recommendation that British troops should leave Oman, but that the Government are taking no notice?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman shot down his argument at the beginning by pointing out that that was only a recommendation. The difference between that and what we are debating is that here we are acting in accordance with a Security Council resolution. If we carry it out we are bringing the United Nations into a new phase of effectiveness and we must seek to make this policy prevail.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I would like to intervene very briefly to appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who I understand is to reply. May I appeal to him not to pontificate about the legality of the Resolutions of the United Nations? There appears to be an idea that the Lord Chancellor's recent announcement has some sanctity. We must remember that, even in this country, the Lord Chancellor has no right to pronounce on the law, except with the agreement of other Law Lords, giving judgment in the House of Lords. Still less has he any right to pronounce upon the legality of the actions of the United Nations.
We are entitled to express our opinions about it and, if I may say so with the utmost respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, I have just as much right to express an opinion on this as he has. I have expressed mine, and I agree with Dean Acheson that there is grave doubt about the legality of the action of the United Nations. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is not intended to operate unless there is a state of affairs menacing international peace. On 23rd November, 1965, the Prime Minister said in this House that we were not proceeding under Chapter VII, presumably because there was not a threat to international peace.
I should like to know what has happened since then to create a threat to international peace, which did not exist then? This is a quite simple point. I may be quite wrong and the Lord Chancellor quite right—I would always be willing to accept that I may be more likely to be wrong—but neither of us has the right to decide this, and that is why my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and myself have suggested that some means should be found of deciding this question, because it would be a disastrous thing if we were to set a precedent for the United Nations to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
We might even reach a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thought that there was some armed insurrection threatened against him in the

country and called upon the United Nations to give him help. As I understand it, he and the Lord Chancellor think that they would be entitled to do so. There are a great many people who would disagree with them.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it is impossible to defeat the Prime Minister by electoral means?

Sir L. Heald: I will not be drawn into answering questions like that, which has one perfectly simple answer, which I would be prepared to give to the hon. Gentleman outside. Is it right that we should pursue a line of conduct which might have the effect, which would not otherwise occur, of driving Smith over the edge, into declaring a republic and thereby probably making it impossible ever to reach any conclusion in this matter?
We have to take this very seriously. From the very outset I opposed U.D.I. and I have always been regarded as a "middle of the road" man in this matter, but I am gravely concerned about the course that we have now set ourselves upon. There is still time. No doubt it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister ever to admit that he had made a mistake, but there are many people who think that he is a great man, and great men can admit that they have made mistakes.

10.40 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I am not surprised that there are still a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who wish to speak in the debate because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has said, the Order, setting into operation the selective mandatory sanctions, is very important indeed and has almost unlimited consequences. We are doubtful whether some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have fully understood how grave some of the consequences might be.
For me this is a very sad occasion, because it is one more chapter of a very sad story in the relations between the Government and Rhodesia. We started by sanctions more in sorrow than in anger. Then they took a more vicious


twist. Then we had the oil sanctions, and now we have the sanctions imposed by the United Nations. This is the final turn down the slippery slope. My belief is that the Prime Minister, while accepting responsibility for Rhodesia, has, in effect, forfeited control.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has left his place. When he suggests that if the Government had not gone to the United Nations with their resolution, other Commonwealth countries would have gone with a much wider one, does he—and does the Commonwealth Secretary—suppose that if the Commonwealth countries had tabled a wider resolution at the United Nations embracing economic sanctions against South Africa, the United States could have let it go through the Security Council? I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing the ostrich act about what will happen over these sanctions.
Sanctions are fine for anyone who holds all the cards and if they are a one-way traffic. They are not so good for anyone who does not hold all the cards and there is a come-back. We all know that sanctions against Rhodesia as imposed by these Orders would be largely ineffective unless they were to include South Africa. We all know very well why South Africa was excluded. Were she to be included, her retaliation would be devastating. It would be two-way traffic plus.
We therefore have the policy and doctrine of sanctions against the weaker brethren who cannot hit back. The incident of shadowing the tanker off the port of Beira would not have happened in South African waters—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or in Russian waters."]—and we all know it. There is not much morality, therefore, in this new doctrine of sanctions against the weaker brethren who cannot hit back. [An HON. MEMBER: "Malta."]
I would like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions. He will recall that amongst the various exclusions his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary mentioned goods in transit to Zambia. How will the Government check goods in transit to Zambia—or anywhere else for that matter—which are

excluded from the Order? It will be necessary to check whatever the cargo is, whether it is by ship or rail, at the point of entry and to check it again at the point of departure into Zambia and ascertain whether there is a difference. Who is to do that?
My other question is about how the right of search on the high seas will work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked some of these questions. Suppose that a British cargo ship carrying asbestos or chromium, or even a tanker carrying oil, is going to Portuguese East Africa. The Portuguese are entitled to buy whatever oil, chromium or anything else they want as long as they can pay for it. Is it really suggested that the captain of the British destroyer, if we have one, should intercept the British cargo ship and ask "What is your cargo?" The master of the vessel may say that he has X hundred tons of asbestos or X thousand tons of oil bound for the port of Beira, or anywhere else in Portuguese East Africa—or, for that matter, South Africa. Is the captain of the British destroyer or frigate to say, "On instructions from the Admiralty, we think that X thousand tons of oil is a bit much, and we think that some of it may be going to Rhodesia. Therefore, you must offload 30 per cent. into the sea and proceed with the rest, or else I board you"? How will this work out physically in practice, and what will happen if, one day, the Portuguese get a little irritated by it and escort a tanker with a destroyer?
These are some of the implications of the slope down which the Government have run themselves, and I do not believe for a second that they have worked them out.
My second objection to the Orders is that sanctions by themselves are not a policy at all. They are simply a means to an end, if the goal to which one is striving is known. But I do not believe that the Government do.
There is always an element of cement in any sanctions. I am old enough to remember, and I dare say other hon. Members are, the story of sanctions against Italy in the Abyssinian war. I was in Rome at the time, and I well remember how ineffective the sanctions were against the Italians and how, almost overnight, they converted a thoroughly


unpopular colonial venture, with large-scale desertions among the Italians, who did not want to fight in Abyssinia, into something like a national crusade.
I repeat that there is an element of cement in sanctions, and this is what is happening in Rhodesia, partly by incompetent administration, partly by hasty decisions, and partly by actions which, as has been said before, drive the very people whom the Government say that they are trying to encourage straight into the arms of the extremists.
The Order says in paragraph 2(5):
No person shall carry out any of the following transactions, that is to say:—

(a) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident in Southern Rhodesia; or
(b) make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside Southern Rhodesia by order of or on behalf of a person resident in Southern Rhodesia …"


Does that go further than the existing Regulations? Does it cover pensions? Does it cover payments made by people in the United Kingdom to old dependants and relatives living in Rhodesia? Does it cover payments of maintenance by a husband in the United Kingdom to a wife from whom he is separated and who is living in Rhodesia?
I do not think that it is the way to encourage the support of the moderates. I had a letter this morning from a retired naval officer now living in Rhodesia which puts the argument better than anything that I have read or heard before, in this House or elsewhere. He says:
My personal position is that on retiring from the Royal Navy after very long service we decided to settle in Rhodesia in 1965. I commuted half my retired pay and, with this money and some capital from investments, set up our home and established a business which, in due course, would provide some return on the money invested in them. There must be many others whose position is similar. On the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, an action which had no support or sympathy from us, sanctions were imposed by the United Kingdom Government not only on the country of Rhodesia but, in addition, on all its citizens who normally received personal funds from Great Britain. Thus, these persons, who I submit would largely be those who support constitutional rule, are subjected to double sanctions; firstly by the effect of those imposed on the country, and secondly by the direct effect of the holding back of their personal monies. In addition to this, persons such as I who receive retired pay have United Kingdom tax deducted at source; thus not only do we receive none of our personal funds

but we are in fact subsidising the United Kingdom by the amount of the tax deducted. The whole position seems to us to be grossly unfair to loyal and innocent citizens of this country but surely also, it is a psychological error on the part of the British Government.
That puts the case as well as any case could be put for just the type of person whom the Government say they are trying to encourage to take a moderate view and persuade either Mr. Smith or somebody else to get back into the constitutional fold. The Government have done exactly the reverse.
Where do we go from here? This is the question to which we want an answer. The constitution agreed upon on H.M.S. "Tiger" envisaged majority rule in 15 or 20 years' time—I do not know how long. Apparently, the Government were prepared to accept that. Now the Government have changed their minds completely and say, "No independence without majority rule tomorrow". This is a non-starter. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by these Orders, plus the policy of no independence without majority rule tomorrow, is not negotiation at all. It is not diplomacy. It is simply a journey down a blind alley

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "without majority rule tomorrow". This is the point which has been so grossly misinterpreted. All that is being stated is that the Government are committed to no independence constitution for Rhodesia until such time as majority rule has been established. There is nothing about the period. There is nothing about the preparation which a moderate Government would undertake before that. Normal progress could be made as with every other British Colony.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I was under the impression that the Secretary of State and his colleagues had said, "No independence before majority rule". If that is not the position—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is so."]—I very much hope that it will be cleared up by the Attorney-General tonight.

10.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: Many people in this country are getting heartily sick of the argument about the legality or otherwise of the United Nations resolution and the results, including these two Orders, which


flow directly from it. Many people are asking themselves, "Why cannot adult individuals behave as adults and find some common sense solution to this problem? Just because these people on the other side of the Atlantic call themselves the United Nations, it does not necessarily mean that they are always infallible. They could well be wrong on this issue."

Mr. Andrew Faulds: So could Smith well be wrong.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: So indeed could others be wrong. So could members of the Government be wrong. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of what happened to a previous international organisation. The predecessor of the United Nations got itself into such disrepute that finally it collapsed and disintegrated. If we are not very careful, this could be the fate of the United Nations, which has great good within it if only those good things are allowed to work out and the silly bickering disputes are put to one side.
I returned recently from Rhodesia. I was in Salisbury exactly 28 days after the coming into force of the first of these Orders. In the week I was there in Salisbury and in the country surrounding, I could see no noticeable softening of opinion. All that this is doing, and all that the previous actions taken by the Government have done, is to harden Rhodesian opinion, and many very moderate, very sensible, and very patriotic people in Rhodesia have come in behind Mr. Smith and his Government.

Mr. A. Woodburn: rose—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I shall give way in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will be patient.
I took the opportunity of speaking to quite a number of Africans, including three Members of the African Opposition in the Rhodesian Parliament, to try to find out what views they had about this problem. The one thing on which they were united was that since the Smith régime had come into power the intimidation, the victimisation, and the horrors that we have seen illustrated and read about have been very much reduced. In

fact, they are now considered to be bad dreams of the past.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends have seemed to imply that this all started when the Labour Government came into office. Will he explain why all these reasonable people did not accede to the very persuasive and sympathetic attempts made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the former Prime Minister when they were dealing with the subject?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I certainly never said that this all came about when the Labour Party came into office, but I do say that the Government are dealing with the situation in a foolish, inhibited way. The situation is very difficult indeed, and calls for statesmanlike behaviour, not the foolish behaviour that we are seeing here. We are dealing with what is happening today. I would be willing to debate with the right hon. Gentleman what went on in the past, but that would be out of order. We are dealing with these Orders.
The next thing to which I want to draw attention, and to which attention has already been drawn by a number of my hon. Friends, is the effect which these Orders will have. They will undoubtedly create hardship in Rhodesia, and the first people to suffer hardship will be the very Africans for whom so much sympathy is being shown in many places, much misguided sympathy, because it is sympathy about the wrong things. They will be the first to suffer. I do not agree with one of my hon. Friends who said that there will be mass starvation. This will not happen in Rhodesia, because she is more than self-sufficient in foodstuffs—foodstuffs liked and eaten by the Africans, as well as foodstuffs liked and eaten by the Europeans. There will not be starvation, so if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that Rhodesia can be brought to her knees in that way they are absolutely wrong.
The second thing which was very soon apparent to me was the great damage which these Measures will do to British trade, and in fact are already doing to it. The whole pattern of trade in that part of Africa is altering very rapidly, and altering to Britain's disadvantage. An enormous number of foreign business men


from countries all over the world, including Americans, who were mentioned just now, are to be found in Salisbury, Bulawayo, and in the other industrial centres of Rhodesia. They are there to do business, and they are doing business to the detriment of Britain. It may be harmful to Rhodesia in a way, but she will still find channels for her trade.
Lastly, these measures will be quite ineffective. Rhodesia can never starve. Her economy may be brought down to the level of a rural economy, and some of her industries and businesses may be brought to a very run-down state, but starvation and bankruptcy will never occur in that country. Foreign traders will see that she gets her supplies, and there is a wide channel which can never be blocked through neighbouring countries. These measures will be quite ineffective. They will cause grave ill will not only in Rhodesia but in other countries, and in the long run they will do great damage to this country, and will be no good in solving this difficult problem.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to this as a silly, bickering dispute which he wished we could put on one side. I wish it were a silly, bickering dispute which we could put on one side, but it is not; it is a major, important dispute, which neither Mr. Smith nor this Government can put on one side. That is one reason why it is a tragedy for both countries.
I want to refer to some of the inconsistencies which have riddled the case deployed by the Opposition. We are told on the one hand, by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that the imposition of sanctions with this degree of severity will be disastrous for the Rhodesian economy, and that millions of Africans will be thrown out of work, and yet, on the other hand, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wells say that these sanctions will be ineffective. Which criticism do the Opposition wish to put forward tonight?

Mr. Turton: What I said was that the object of the Government is to create

economic chaos, but that in my view it would be ineffective.

Mr. Rowland: I accept that qualification. I am sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that many of his colleagues suggested that this would be very serious. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] The last speaker said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; he said the reverse."] I reiterate that some hon. Members opposite stated that sanctions will be effective in throwing Africans out of work and that starvation might ensue, while others have stated that sanctions will be ineffective. I want to know which argument the Opposition really wish to deploy tonight.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: You are ineffective.

Mr. Rowland: I wondered why the hon. Member's voice was coming from an unaccustomed place; he evidently wishes to register the fact that he is a back bencher.
The second inconsistency is that we are told that foreign States will not cooperate. The United States, Germany, Switzerland and France have all been mentioned. I can only repeat what I said in an intervention during the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), namely, that if other States are not co-operating one of the few ways that we have as a nation of getting them to co-operate is to ask for mandatory sanctions in the United Nations. One of the criticisms frequently levelled against this Government is that they have been carrying the whole cost of the sanctions operations. By making them mandatory we are attempting to spread the cost. I do not like the way in which some hon. Members opposite seem to glory in the fact that certain other sovereign States are trading with Rhodesia.
A third inconsistency is that we are told that by taking this matter to the United Nations Britain is losing control of the situation. On the other hand, some hon. Members seem to glory in the fact that in their eyes Britain has already lost control—because they believe that Mr. Smith has very nearly won the battle.
We are told that our aim is to create unemployment, as if it were the British Government's fault that this should occur in Rhodesia. I must point out that if


unemployment occurs among the African majority in Rhodesia the responsibility will rest without question on the head of Mr. Smith and his colleagues. They are the body of men who are committing their country to this course. Mr. Smith could have settled the whole matter on H.M.S. "Tiger" and his Cabinet could have carried the settlement through. But what do we hear this evening? We hear right hon. and hon. Members on the other side saying that it is Britain who is to blame for what has happened in Rhodesia. They say that it is Britain which is to blame and not the rebellious régime in Rhodesia.
It has been said more than once during this debate that this is a sad event, but I recall that I was in Rhodesia 12 months ago and I then predicted almost what is happening here tonight. I say that because in my last conversation with Rhodesian farmers they said, "If we ride your sanctions, what are you going to do?" I said that if they rode the British sanctions that would by no means be the end of the affair because, whether they liked it or not, or whether we liked it or not, the rest of the world would not just go away and say that it had ceased to be interested in the matter. So, we have moved inexorably to the kind of situation we are discussing tonight. In many ways it was inexorable because, although the Prime Minister has done his best to prevent this situation from arising, both in the last 14 months, and before the illegal declaration of independence, there has never been obvious willingness to co-operate on the part of Mr. Smith.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) has said that the Government's policy will lead to "failure and humiliation" but the only alternative policy is one of capitulation; and that would certainly lead to failure and humiliation. I realise that there are no ideal policies, and none certain of success. For my part, at least, I have never pretended that there are; but there are unavoidable policies—policies which one cannot avoid carrying out—and they are what the British Government have followed in the last 14 months. If we decide not to use force, and not to do nothing, and sanctions are applied, including those with United Nations'

approval, then that is an unavoidable policy. Another policy which has been pursued if the opportunity occurred has been to talk; and hon. Members must admit that that has certainly been pursued. Many leading members of this Government have talked with Mr. Smith. There were talks aboard H.M.S. "Tiger", and although the Government's policy is now one of having "no independence before majority rule", it is still open to Mr. Smith to come to Britain and say that he will discuss that. It is open to Britain to go back to the Commonwealth leaders and say she will discuss something other than NIBMAR if they will talk of other possibilities. All these policies are open, but they must be combined with effective sanctions. Another reason why I believe that the Government's present policy is unavoidable, but is not something doomed to success or failure straight away, is because of the pressure from the Commonwealth and because of the existence of the United Nations' Organisation—which right hon. and hon. Members opposite may not like, but which are all part of the facts of life.
I do not pretend that we have absolute control over this situation and when I was in Rhodesia I made the point that there is a limit to how long we can maintain control over it because, if Rhodesia did not come to terms, the Commonwealth as well as the United Nations would become involved. But, by taking the initiative at United Nations, the Government are trying to retain control as much as is possible and as much as any British Government could do in the situation.
At every stage in this developing situation I have found it difficult to know what else any Government could have done other than what this Government has done at any one point of time. Because I felt this. I have supported the Government on this issue throughout the last 18 months, and at various times have been described as a Communist in Rhodesia for so doing or a racialist by African students in this country for so doing. This may mean that both I and the Government are right.
It is because of the unavoidable quality of the decision-making that has been taken by the British Government that I suspect that many hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that they could


have done little other than what the Government have done if they had been faced with this problem.
When we had the vote on oil sanctions, there were 30 hon. Members opposite who supported the Government. When we had the last vote two hon. Members opposite abstained. We were told that many of the other hon. Members who agreed with the Government in their hearts were, as it were, "put off" by the fine passion of the Prime Minister that day. Well, there has been no speech from the Prime Minister today!
I hope it is just possible that there are some hon. Members opposite who will realise what is at stake here and will represent the small flickering flame of the torch that the right hon. Member for Streatham was carrying only two years ago on this issue. I believe that some indication of that quality in the Conservative Party is perhaps needed if only to allay the impression, which will go out once again tonight from the House, that the Conservative Party is officially not only opposed to the practical policies of the Government but is on the side of Mr. Ian Smith. That is the message that will go out, and it is one that I regret. Therefore, I hope it may be possible that some hon. Members opposite will see fit to abstain, at least, on this matter, given that we have debated it with reasonable calm and, I hope, good nature.

11.13 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland), I have listened to every speech today. He began by referring to inconsistencies among the speeches on this side of the House. We on this side are not in a position to judge in a comparable sense since so few hon. Members opposite have made any speeches on which we could base our assumptions.
We had the usual embittered speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) which we have come to expect. We are quite aware of his feelings. He has never forgiven his Prime Minister for not using force in Rhodesia and making peace in Hanoi. Those are his two real miseries. We have, however, got used to his diatribes, and tonight he was below standard.
Although we had not heard enough speeches opposite to be able to judge the

inconsistencies between them, the hon. Member for Meriden provided us with quite enough of his own. He made an attempt to divide hon. Members on this side by saying that some of us had said that sanctions would be effective and some had said that they would be ineffective. I have listened to every speech, and every speech of ours has followed the same pattern as my views. Sanctions will be effective, but only effective against the people for whom we in this House express sympathy.
It has been agreed already that it will be the Africans—in the first place those from Malawi and Zambia—who will lose their jobs. One thing that I cannot stand from hon. Members opposite is their absolute hypocrisy in never referring to this fact in their speeches. If sanctions are successful, scores of thousands of people will be sent back across the frontiers into Zamia and Malawi without any future. When shall we get hon. Members opposite to admit this? They say that the sanctions will hurt; but whom will they hurt? I hope that one day hon. Members opposite will realise whom the sanctions will hurt.
Then there was the point, which the hon. Member for Meriden was making again, that the Government he supports have always been able and willing, as he says, to talk and to have negotiations, and he instanced the talks aboard the "Tiger". I remember that at the last election, all over the country, Tory candidates were called by Labour candidates traitors and hirelings of Mr. Smith if they suggested that we should negotiate with him. Have hon. Members opposite forgotten that, and how in their election addresses and speeches everywhere they made it out at that time to be almost a moral crime to suggest negotiations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has gone rather wide, but I think the hon. Member is now going even wider than the debate has gone so far. I hope that he will get back to the Order.

Sir F. Bennett: I am perfectly ready, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept your decision in defence of the hon. Gentleman in what would otherwise have been an incontrovertible argument.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon.


Member to make out that you came to my defence—when I was ready to come to my own?

Sir F. Bennett: All right. It was just a happy coincidence, perhaps. I will continue with my remarks.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Gentlemen opposite why we oppose the policies tonight. We have had various extremely able speakers explaining from this side tonight why we oppose the Government's policies. Firstly, because they are utterly silly, because they have been shown tonight, as in the past, to be incapable of overall enforcement. That challenge has been made, and not one speech from the opposite side has shown how some of the anomalies and impossibilities of these sanctions can be overcome. We have also had distinguished legal Members on this side showing how, quite possibly, the Government are doing something illegal anyhow. But above all we oppose these policies because they have been shown to be ineffective.
I want to look back at the history of the last 16 months since all this began. We have been coming to this House and debating this subject and Orders like this, and over and over again we have been told by Ministers, "All you have to do is to go along with us just a little bit longer and you will see everything will work out". They have said the same thing to the Commonwealth, and this is why the Prime Minister's name stinks from one end of Africa to the other. "Give us a little bit longer and Mr. Smith's Government will collapse," they said.
I remember asking a Question of the Prime Minister about sanctions before they went to the United Nations. I was told, "Surely the hon. Member would prefer a painful but quick punishment and effect, rather than a long-drawn-out agony." What is painful and quick punishment? And when does it become a long-drawn-out agony? It has been going on for 16 months, and does it not become a long-drawn-out agony?
The Prime Minister went to Lagos and told the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, "Just a little bit longer and everything will be all right—just a little bit longer: a few weeks—not months—and everything will be put right." That is why

distrust is rampant throughout Africa about the Government's policies. After all, the former Secretary of State said they would work; he said it in June, he said it in July, he said it in August, and it was said in October. Now we are in February, and Ministers have the gross impertinence to come to this House and ask us to pass a new series of Orders when for months past sanctions have been ineffective and, moreover, harmful to this country.
When hon. Members on this side criticise policies which they know well, as also hon. Members opposite know, too, have been proved wrong, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says we must be public relations officers for Mr. Smith. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends below the Gangway do not hesitate to say when they disagree with some aspect of policy in the Far East, and they disagree with their Government. Are they public relations officers for Ho Chi Minh because they disagree with Government policy in that matter?
I am proud to be staying here tonight to vote against these Orders. We shall go on from this side speaking and voting against such Orders till we induce the Government to realise the gross failure of their policies.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The House should vote against the Orders for three reasons—first, because they are illegal; secondly, because they will not achieve their objective; and thirdly, because it is the wrong objective anyway. Apart from that, I cannot see how any hon. Member can have confidence in any suggestion brought by the Government on this issue. The Government have shown themselves so inept and so much at sea since the crisis started, what reason have we to have any more faith in what they propose? If we needed proof, the speeches that we have heard from hon. Members opposite were enough to show that there is not much confidence on that side of the House either.
But we need not judge only by the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Let us remember what was said in the first debate after U.D.I. I remember it clearly. A number of hon. Members on this side of the House said unequivocally at that stage that sanctions would fail. The


Prime Minister said that they would suceeed, and that they would succeed in weeks rather than months. He said that he would never negotiate with the present Rhodesian Government and that the matter would never be handed to an outside authority. What can we believe?
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) tonight implied clearly that sanctions were much more successful than we on this side of the House maintain. I should like to explain why I think that that is nonsense. The figures which I shall quote are based on the first six months of 1966 and comes from an authority which I believe to be very well placed to know the truth—and it is certainly not an authority which supports the present Government in Rhodesia.
Assuming a fall in exports of 25 per cent. over the year, and assuming that one-third only of the 1966 tobacco crop was sold—which most hon. Members will agree, from the tips which we have picked up, is probably a gloomy figure from the Rhodesian point of view—the export figure for 1966 would be about £90 million. Imports in the first six months were £40 million, which is 30 per cent. below 1965. It is clear from this that the Rhodesian Government are keeping imports below the foreign exchange earnings. The figures for re-exports have been drastically curtailed by sanctions and in 1966 they will not exceed £7 million. Exports and re-exports therefore come to about £97 million and imports for the same year to about £85 million. This shows a favourable visible balance of £12 million. An improvement in the invisibles of about £15 million arises because payments of interest and dividends on foreign capital have been deferred. In 1966 Rhodesia should therefore finish with a surplus of current payments of about £7 million. This is a great deal better than Rhodesia has known for a number of years. If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor could come to the House and tell us that, proportionately speaking, this country had a balance of payments half as good as that, they would call a General Election.
That is why the Rhodesian Government are prepared and able for the next season to budget for a tobacco crop of 200 million lb. at 28 pence a lb. That is not a very good return, but for the

efficient grower there is a profit margin in it.

Mr. Michael Foot: I presume that these figures are those of the Rhodesian Government. I was quoting the report by a reporter in the Sunday Telegraph. Perhaps the hon. Member would deal with those figures.

Mr. Hastings: The figure in the Sunday Telegraph in no way conflicts with my figure of one-third of the tobacco crop sold in any case. If I had to stake anything at all between a report of the Sunday Telegraph and the authority which I am quoting, I should choose this authority, which I can assure the hon. Member is in a good position to know and is not supporting the present Rhodesian regime.

Mr. Foot: Why will not the hon. Member tell the House the authority which he is quoting?

Mr. Hastings: For a reason which I should have thought the hon. Member would understand—that the information was given to me in confidence.
What I am asking the hon. Member to accept is my word that it does not come from a supporter of the present Rhodesian régime, but indeed from somebody who might well join the sort of opposition which right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite always imagine is going to appear.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale accused us of being isolated; he said the whole of the world was on the other side and that it was only the Tory Party which was putting forward these arguments. I wish he could go out to Salisbury and spend a few hours in Meikles Hotel on a Saturday. It used to be full of farmers who had come into Salisbury for the weekend, but now he would find himself surrounded by Greeks, by Frenchmen, Germans and Japanese. What does he think they are there for—their health or their holidays?
The authority which is isolated is the British Government, isolated in their stupidity over this affair. We are told that these Orders we are asked to pass tonight are in order to preserve the unity of the Commonwealth. In all honesty I believe that the Commonwealth, valuable institution though it is in many ways,


is characterised not by unity but by disunity. I do not know of one Commonwealth conference which has been easy from this point of view. The only reason they were got into one lobby this time, so to speak, was by the Prime Minister promising to bash Rhodesia harder. What will the price be next time? The Commonwealth has no common law, no common standard of good government, no military alliance; in fact no political cohesion whatever.
The other reason advanced was the United Nations and that it was world opinion which was forcing the British Government into a policy which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meriden (Mr. Christopher Rowland) said was unavoidable. But what is this world opinion?
I would like to quote briefly from a report in "U.S. News and World Report" recently, which carried the now famous letter from Mr. Dean Acheson to the Washington Post on this subject. The article had reached about the point in the argument at which I am in my speech now, and it had this to say:
At least 37 member nations of the U.N. have governments that are based on minority rule. At least 25 other U.N. members are open to suspicion in this respect. Fewer than half of all the 122 U.N. members have governments clearly based on majority rule.
This is world opinion, and when is the British Government going to bring all these other matters to the attention of the United Nations? We have some 60 or 70 cases now—and this is precisely what Mr. Dean Acheson meant when he asked the same question; when is the U.S.A., if it has to involve itself with the Rhodesian situation, going to take up all these other countries as well?
The trouble with Her Majesty's Government, and so many hon. Members on the other side, is that they have lost touch with the reality of power in this situation, and when politicians lose touch with power they are in danger of doing great mischief. Certainly I would concede there is always room for ideals, but if policies are based on fantasy then this is a wicked betrayal and everybody they represent is going to suffer for it.
The truth is that the Commonwealth has no unity, and there is no such thing as world opinion. We have made the fatal mistake of pretending to respon-

sibility in Rhodesia when in fact we have no power. Nothing can or could be achieved by setting out to destroy Rhodesia, even if it were possible, and we on this side of the House have shown tonight that it is not.
If hon. Members opposite are genuine in their wish for African advance, and if they want opposition to the Smith régime, they should swallow their pride, put an end to this folly and make a settlement before it is too late.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) made what was perhaps the keynote speech opposite when he said that he had supported the Government in their various measures because he could not think of anything else they could have done and he hoped that we on this side would support the Orders because the Prime Minister had not made a speech about them. I feel that this dispirited approach to the whole question was symptomatic of the gloom and silence which we have heard—if one can hear silence, and sometimes one can—from right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Before the hon. Member for Meriden made his valuable contribution, we heard three other speeches from the benches opposite. I leave aside the invective of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his denunciation of those who oppose the Orders as not consulting the public interest but carrying on a campaign—a thing he would never do, of course. I have never had the happy experience of agreeing with the hon. Member in any of his campaigns even though, since he ceased to be a Liberal, he has become more moderate.
The other three speeches opposite shared in common the claims that this country should obey the instructions of the Security Council. Therefore, the debate has largely turned upon legal arguments. I know that these are never very popular in the House, and less popular after 11.30 p.m. than before. Despite that, this argument gives me great pleasure, because I have long taken the view that the United Nations has been acting in a manner contrary to its Charter. But before embarking on my reasons I want to say something to the Attorney-General.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I hope that the Attorney-General will not be unduly impressed or over awed by the Lord Chancellor. I hope, indeed, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be unduly impressed or over awed by his own opinions, if I may say so. I have great respect for the legal judgment of the noble Lord and of the Attorney-General, but lawyers are sometimes also politicians and sometimes come to a legal point rather as a practitioner comes to a brief. It is not that they do not mean what they say but that there is a sort of mysterious process which predisposes them to develop one line of thought rather than another. I also made these points when I was sitting on the benches opposite, and since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to answer the debate, I should give him a few points that he can write down on a piece of paper and deal with in the masterly and confident way in which he will make his speech.
It has been suggested that we should support these Orders because the United Nations has said we should. I would agree that the United Nations has said that we should and passed the resolution, but whether it has any binding effect on us depends on whether the Charter makes it binding and, in my view, this is not such a resolution. I say that for three reasons. The first is that it was not supported by the concurring votes of the five permanent members. This has been referred to already, and Article 27 of the Charter says that it should be. What is worse, anticipating what the Attorney-General will try to say, this is not the first time that this has been done. [Interruption.] It was done at the time of Korea, and two bad examples do not make the case any better.
That is enough to establish the invalidity of this resolution. There is no other answer to it, because the Charter is clear. But there are two further points. Sanctions can only be imposed under the Charter upon a sovereign State for the reasons lucidly set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) during the last Rhodesian debate. The third reason is that sanctions cannot be imposed under the Charter in order to intervene in a matter which is essen-

tially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member State.
Since the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, it is incontrovertible that that is the state of affairs in this case, and that the United Nations is intervening in a matter which is within the domestic jurisdiction of a member-State. This would be quite conclusive as to the illegality and invalidity of the Security Council's resolution, but I know that in some quarters there has been what I can only call a legislative interpretation of this Article, and that there are many who bitterly resent the exclusion of the United Nations from matters of domestic jurisdiction.
There are many to whom the United Nations is above all the instrument to force all countries, or all White countries, or all non-Communist countries, sometimes all overseas countries, to rule themselves according to certain fashionable doctrines. One of their techniques has been to substitute in argument the word "concern" for "jurisdiction" after the word "domestic". They then say that any matter about which people outside feel strongly cannot be said to be a matter solely of domestic concern. That is the birth point of the bogus "threat to peace", about which I shall say something later.
The other attempt to escape, by ingenious interpretation, from the effect of Article 2, paragraph 7, is with the last words of the Article:
…this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
Some people suggest that this cancels out the rest of the paragraph, which I am sure the Attorney-General would agree is absolute nonsense. Alternatively they suggest that it cancels out the rest of the paragraph if there is a threat to peace. I wonder if anyone who puts that argument forward really believes it.
It is quite obvious what the proviso means. It refers to the application of sanctions, which is not to be prejudiced, and what it means is that if for some valid reason under the Charter the United Nations has imposed sanctions which under Articles 41 and 42 may involve interference with many aspects of the life of a country, for example with its telegraphic and postal communications, involving the employment of military, air and naval forces, the operation of those


sanctions is not to be prevented by the effect of Article 2 in paragraph 7. That, I am sure—and I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington agrees with me—is the obvious meaning of the proviso to Article 2(7). It refers to the application of sanctions and nothing else, and it presupposes an antecedent valid reason for the imposition of the sanctions.
Recently I have observed that those who used to put forward this argument have been shifting away from it on to the more subtle one of admitting that what I have just given is a correct interpretation of the paragraph but going on to say, "Oh, well, but this paragraph is merely put in the Charter to protect the interests of each State and, therefore, each State can waive it; and Britain, by going to the Security Council and asking for this resolution of sanctions on Rhodesia, has waived it." I have heard that argument put forward. I do not know whether we shall hear it from the Attorney-General tonight, but I hope that he will not lend his support to it, because if we start saying that this is the law of the prophets we justify every occasion when the United Nations is called in to crush a rebellion.
One of my hon. Friends suggested that it might be used in the United Kingdom. That was, perhaps, a little fanciful.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—at the moment. Let us not forget that this was done in the Congo. It is not the first time that this breach has been made. The United Nations went in with troops, aircraft and tanks to crush a rebellion in the Congo, and it did so at the invitation of the alleged Congolese Government.
If the Attorney-General says that the resolution is valid and the Government ask the House to pass the Order because, although it would be illegal under Article 2(7), nevertheless the British Government have waived the protection—

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Time and time again the hon. and learned Member uses the word "illegality". Is it not a fact that whether or not such resolutions as this are within the Charter—and it is not conceded that they are not—unless and until they are either revoked or challenged

in the International Court of Justice, which they have not been, they are still binding and mandatory resolutions of the United Nations?

Mr. Bell: I was, perhaps, incautious in using the word "illegality". "Invalidity" is the appropriate word. It is not that they are illegal. It is simply that they are like resolutions passed in a school debating society. The hon. Member has helped me by getting that clear.
I was, I suppose, being a little bit drawn towards the Orders which we are debating. One tries to keep the argument general, but one is sometimes drawn into the vortex. I was elliptically saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member is now being deliberately provocative. I hope that he will come back to the Orders.

Mr. Bell: I was elliptically referring to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the resolution is invalid. Therefore, the Orders which we are discussing are illegal in so far as they purport to have—this, indeed, is their main effect—extra-territorial effect in authorising things to be done which may affect people of other nations. So that illegality is the relevant point, although I take the point made by the hon. Member that the resolution itself is only invalid.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I said nothing of the kind, and this is a gross misrepresentation of what I have claimed. My argument was that this is a binding resolution of the United Nations. There may be some doubt, which is not conceded, as to its initial validity, but until it is challenged in the International Court of Justice, which no country is disposed to do at the moment, or until it is revoked in the Security Council or in the United Nations, such a binding resolution stands.

Mr. Bell: I do not think that the position is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman says that no nation is willing to take up the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have addressed the House on the familiar subject of Article 2(7). Nation after nation has wanted to take that to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.
Always it has been voted down in the United. Nations, mainly by the Afro-Asian members. How much better it would have been if they had agreed that that Article should be taken to the International Court for an advisory opinion. It looks a little fishy when those who try to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries bear down upon any attempt to take Article 2 to the International Court for an advisory opinion.
Since I have been challenged on the matter, may I make this further point? Until a few years ago, every Government took the view that I have been putting tonight. I started protesting when they stopped doing it. It was my own Government. The Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 always took this point in the Security Council and insisted upon it. The Conservative Government followed. Certainly I adhere to the point of view that I have been putting forward tonight.
We have heard a good deal about the threat to peace, and I will not repeat what has been said by other hon. Gentlemen. But what is the threat to peace that the two Orders which we have before us for approval could exorcise or diminish? It would be a very odd threat to peace about which they could do anything. We all know on both sides of the House that this threat to peace is fraudulent. It is a threat to someone's vanity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Where is he, indeed?
It is a threat to the peace of mind of some people. But a threat to peace which might arise out of the operation of sanctions is clearly not available to justify the sanctions. Even the present Government are not as topsy-turvy in their thinking as that, though perhaps I am being unduly optimistic.
It is said that passions run high. I will not go up any side alley there. I will only say that I venture to doubt whether passions in Africa really run high about this. I do not claim to know much about Africa, although I know much more about it than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I do not claim to be an expert, but I doubt whether passions run high at all. Even the African politicians are slightly tongue in cheek about it. Even if it is true and passions do run high, the relevant question is whether

those high passions could or would do anything about it? The answer is that they could not and, what is more, they would not.
Finally, since paragraph 4(2,b) of the earlier of these two Orders mentions that they refer to citizens of Rhodesia, I want to say a word about the illegality of the régime on which all that is based. We know that this is a rebellion, but about half the member States of the United Nations are currently ruled by illegal régimes. Twenty of these derive from rebellions in the last four years and twelve derive from rebellions in the last two years. Two member Governments actually derive title from successful rebellions against the British Crownéthe British Government in 1688, but I suppose the Prime Minister recognises himself, and the United States Government, with whom we seem to be enjoying very friendly relations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) pointed out, 37 are minority régimes. We seem to recognise them all.
We do so upon a principle which is old, well-known and clear—that the de facto government are in effective control of their territory. That is the only thing British Governments have ever looked at. We are the most pragmatic nation in the world in deciding when to recognise a rebellion. We do it in five minutes if they are in effective control of the country.
I have not visited Rhodesia since independence, unlike some of my hon. Friends, but every report agrees that the de facto Government are in effective control of the territory.

Mr. Maclennan: Would the hon. Gentleman care to name some other Governments who have thought fit to recognise the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

Mr. Bell: If it had not been for the—as I think—very foolish attitude of the British Government, I would think pretty well all of them would have done so. What is more, the hon. Gentleman may find as time passes that even if the British Government do not change their attitude some other Governments will.
Why, these things being so, are we asked to approve these Orders, or, indeed, any orders other than ones revoking our previous folly? We have been told why by the Prime Minister. It is because of his


folly in promising to call together a Commonwealth Conference last September; his folly then, having done that foolish thing, in losing his nerve at the September Conference; his folly in agreeing to have a deadline which ran out before Christmas; and his folly in agreeing to slam the door on all negotiations with Rhodesia after a set date.
The Prime Minister is on record when this Rhodesian situation was in its earliest stages about majority rule. He said that one should not envisage immediate majority rule for Rhodesia. What has happened to make him change his opinion and, instead of negotiating, produce tonight two Orders which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs described as really drastic? That is what they are. The saddest part of this is the way in which these two Orders are the last step in a long decline into bitterness and recrimination. The sad thing about the Secretary of State's speech—I am sorry that he is not listening to me, but I realise that Chief Whips are more important than back benchers—was that it showed throughout a cold hostility to Rhodesia. But the Commonwealth Secretary is not a cold man, and not an unkind man. He is caught up in the train of events which has led people to talk about sanctions biting more deeply, and to gloat over the destruction, impoverishment, and prospective humiliation of their adversaries, but these are a branch of the British people.
When I asked the Government to take the initiative, that was all, at the recent talks so that what I called fratricidal strife might be avoided, the Prime Minister seemed very nettled. I had not referred to kith and kin, but the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to say that the whole world was our kith and kin. I hope that I am reasonably tolerant of other people, but I think that it makes a great deal of difference if people are of British extraction and are our kith and kin in the ordinary meaning of the word, and I am not saying that this does not influence me.
These are British people, many of them relatives, not my relatives, but of many people whom I know, and I trust their judgment in local conditions to an extent that I might not trust the judgment of people of different extraction. I am

forced to say, though I do so with reluctance, that this thing has grown and developed in such a way that I fear it has now become primarily a personal struggle of the Prime Minister against the British people here and there. I prefer Sir Winston Churchill's phrase to the right hon. Gentleman's—against "the British race around the world". This is a very sad occasion. Let nobody mistake it for anything else. This is an occasion when we have ganged up the world against some of our people, and I hope that tonight the House will throw out these Orders with contempt and will tell the Prime Minister to try again.

11.57 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): rose—

Mr. Wall: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it in order, and in accordance with precedent, for a Minister to rise to speak when there are at least three hon. Members on this side of the House who have sat through the whole debate and have not been able to express their opinions? These Orders are of great importance both to this country and to Rhodesia.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

The Attorney-General: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who has been frustrated in his endeavour to contribute to the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yet.")—but I feel, with respect—

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a number of Opposition Members rose to speak and you allowed the Attorney-General to catch your eye, may I draw your attention to, and ask your advice about, the unexpected presence of the Patronage Secretary? Does not this suggest that we are about to have the Closure clamped on us and thus frustrate the earnest desire of my hon. Friends and myself to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Happily the occupants of the Chair are not responsible for the Patronage Secretary of any Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is all very insidious.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might have a third attempt at suggesting to the House that we have had a very full debate on these Orders, and it might, accordingly, be helpful for me to endeavour to deal with some of the matters which have been raised.
May I at the outset deal with the proposition that these Orders are invalid or illegal by reason of some alleged invalidity in the Security Council Resolution. The position with regard to the Orders is that whether or not the Security Council resolution is invalid has no bearing whatsoever on their validity. They derive their validity from the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, which was passed by this House. The extra-territorial question involved in the Orders is expressly authorised in Section 2(2) of that Act, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of the Security Council resolution. Nor do these Orders depend for their validity upon the validity of the Security Council Resolution.
Nevertheless, it is right that I should remind the House that by passing these Orders tonight we are giving effect to a Resolution of the United Nations, passed by the Security Council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) said, until that resolution is successfully challenged or revoked it is binding upon every member of the United Nations. We have accepted, by our membership of the United Nations and by our acceptance of the Charter, our obligations under Article 25, which says that:
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
That is why we have introduced these Orders tonight and that is, in itself, an effective reply to the debate, along with the preliminary matter that I have raised, that in any event the validity of these Orders, in law, rests upon our own domestic legislation, namely, the Southern Rhodesian Act. I shall return shortly to the matters—

Mr. Maudling: rose—

The Attorney-General: I have a good deal of ground to cover and I hope that I will not be pressed to give way too often. Naturally I will give way to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).

Mr. Maudling: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he arguing that the House has no option but to vote in favour of these Orders? If that is his argument how can he maintain that Britain is still in control of the situation?

The Attorney-General: I say that this country, the Government and at any rate those hon. Members on this side of the House are supporters of the United Nations, and we take seriously our membership of the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We rejoice that in the stand that the Government have taken they have now obtained the full support of the Security Council, the full support of the Commonwealth and the full support of the membership of the United Nations. The only forces that seem to be against us are the Smith régime and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We now have the full support of the United Nations in the action that we are taking to bring to an end the rebellion of the illegal régime in Rhodesia. If hon. Members opposite were serious in welcoming that possibility I would have expected that they would rejoice that the whole world is behind the British Government in this endeavour; instead, we have had the hopeful cries of hon. Members opposite that there will be failure on our part.
I want now to deal with some of the specific points raised about the Orders and their implementation. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Barnet in what way these Orders have changed the previous law and gone further than the sanctions which were previously in force. So far as concerns exports from, and imports into, the United Kingdom, the answer is that the Order has made virtually no change in the previous position which obtained. For more than a year there has been a ban on practically all goods from Southern Rhodesia and on practically all exports to Southern Rhodesia. This was a result of the legislation under which our import and export controls are operated, that is, the Order of 1964 covering imports, and that for exports made in 1965.
In theory, this standing legislation has permitted prohibited goods to be exported or imported by special licence, but such licences have not been generally granted


in practice in respect of Southern Rhodesia, except for educational or humanitarian purposes. In the case of the goods specifically mentioned by this Order, the ban becomes absolute now in practice and in law, although the Order still provides for an exception for goods destined for the common service organisations which Rhodesia shares in common with Malawi and Zambia.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, can he say why the Government then agreed not to export the £20,000 collected by the Freedom from Hunger Campaign in the United Kingdom for improving production in, and knowledge of, agriculture especially when the Prime Minister is himself a vice-president of the United Kingdom Committee?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give a direct answer at the moment, but will do so before I sit down and also deal with other aspects of the Order, which has made some substantial changes in the law.
First, looking at the question from the point of view of exports from Rhodesia and imports into Rhodesia, rather than from the point of view of imports into the United Kingdom and exports from the United Kingdom, the Order has added three commodities—copper, meat and hides—to those whose export from Southern Rhodesia to any other country was previously prohibited by virtue of the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Exports and Imports) Order, 1966. It has also, for the first time, prohibited the import into Rhodesia from anywhere in the world, motor vehicles, aircraft, arms and ammunition, and equipment and materials for the maintenance, manufacture, or assembly of any of those goods. Previously, petroleum was the only commodity whose import into Rhodesia from anywhere in the world was prohibited.
Secondly, the Order prohibits for the first time, the operation and use of undertakings in Southern Rhodesia for the manufacture or assembly of motor vehicles and aircraft, and certain transactions which would otherwise enable that prohibition to be evaded or disregarded. This is very important.
Thirdly, the Order has introduced for the first time a complete ban on the carriage in British ships and aircraft of goods which are being illegally exported from Rhodesia, or illegally imported into Rhodesia, and it confers on authorised officers—naval and military officers, Customs and consular officers, and Board of Trade officials, certain powers to intercept and investigate ships and aircraft suspected of contravening this ban.
As to the operation of the Orders, the right hon. Member for Barnet asked some questions about their impact on our shipping and shipping operations. I would emphasise that no other country has the power to stop or interfere with British ships, and as regards the use of British ships, our powers to intercept and search are conceded in Article 8 of the Order and in particular, paragraph (1) of the Order. These powers are intended to help enforce the prohibition contained in Article 7. The prohibition came into effect on the commencement of the Order on 23rd December, and after that date it became illegal to carry prohibited goods to Rhodesia no matter where they were originally taken on board. It then became the shipper's duty not to complete the transaction—that is, not deliver the goods to the order of the Rhodesian consignee. In this respect the position is no different from that of any other contract the completion of which is made illegal by supervening legislation.
As to the stopping and searching of ships on the high seas, no country has done that more than this country in the long course of our history. [HON. MEMBERS: "In wartime."] In two world wars the intercepting of ships at sea and the seizure of cargoes has been one of our principal weapons, and we are now faced in the Rhodesian situation with an economic blockade, with an attempt by the peaceful means of economic sanctions to restore the rule of law and legality in Rhodesia.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Attorney-General: No, I cannot give way at the moment. I shall give way a reasonable amount, but I must endeavour to deal with the many questions that have been raised, and if I give way it will simply mean that I shall be unable to cope with the matters that have been put to me.


I was asked by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) about goods in transit to Zambia. The position is that it is expected that we shall be able to check goods in transit to Zambia by comparing what we shall learn from the shipping documents with what we shall learn from information obtained in Zambia. We are getting, and shall get, the full co-operation of the Zambian authorities. Although there may be occasional cases of successful evasion by means of fictitious assignment to or from Zambia, we think that we can stop any substantial traffic of that kind. Anyway, we on this side of the House are determined to try to do it.
I was asked by the same hon. Member whether Article 2(5) of the Order covers pensions. The answer is that it does not. Article 2(5) states that the transactions that are forbidden must be transactions carried out for the purposes of any act that is forbidden by any of the provisions of the Article, and the payment of pensions to Rhodesians is not affected by the Order. Nothing in either of the Orders before the House affects the payment of pensions. In general, the transfer of funds from this country to Rhodesia is regulated by the Exchange Control Act, 1947. The payment of pensions is not prevented. The method of payment is, of course, regulated so as to prevent this exception to our financial controls being abused, but pensions are paid in full regularly and without impediment.
Perhaps I may in this same connection refer to the question which was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). My information is that there is no knowledge of any such application from the Freedom from Hunger organisation of the type that has been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but if he cares to send my right hon. Friend details of this they will be examined immediately, sympathetically, and with care.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough, in that case, to explain to me why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already answered that it is impossible for it to send out?

The Attorney-General: My information, I repeat, is that my right hon.

Friend has no knowledge of any such application, but clearly, the matter will be examined and looked at, and sympathetic consideration will be given to it.
Let me now turn to some of the questions which were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre).

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, would it be in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the rescue of the House and inform the House on this very important humanitarian matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that is not a matter of order for me.

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest. He referred to the provisions of Article 10(5) of the Order. The purpose of that provision, requiring that
Proceedings for an offence against this Order shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Treasury or the Board of Trade or, in England or Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
is, of course, to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions from being launched. In regard to the specific operations he asked me about, namely, operations of B.O.A.C. and Thomas Cook in Rhodesia, and British Petroleum petrol stations, none of these activities of those organisations is forbidden by the terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh")—of the Order.
Then I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of what was said in the opening statement on the Orders, that anybody, be he a British subject resident or non-resident, would be subject to penalty under this, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman exempt Government organisations from this? Would he also answer my other question, which is my most important one? How does he exempt from the Order asbestos coming to this country for one great firm?

The Attorney-General: It is exempted only because it is not engaging in any operations which are forbidden under the Order. That is the simple explanation. In so far as there is any particular


case relating to asbestos, I would very much—and so would my right hon. Friend—like to have full particulars of this transaction in asbestos, which may well need careful looking at.
I was asked by the right hon. Member for Barnet about subsidiaries. Subsidiary companies incorporated in another country are not caught by this legislation, because they are not our nationals, but they are, of course, affected by the legislation of the countries where they are incorporated or where their activities take place. If the parent companies being incorporated in the United Kingdom, however, in any way actively encourage their subsidiaries to import prohibited goods into Rhodesia, or to export prohibited goods from there, they themselves, under the terms of the Order, will be committing an offence.

Mr. Burden: rose

The Attorney-General: I will not give way. I have not noticed the hon. Member in constant attendance. I propose to turn to the next question which I was asked—the position of Rhodesians in Rhodesia. If Rhodesians contravene the provisions of the Order which apply to them, they commit an offence against the Order. If an existing contract conflicts with the Order, the contract becomes void and unenforceable.
It is true that we cannot enforce the Order in Rhodesia at present in the sense of bringing prosecutions there, but the persons concerned must not assume that it cannot be enforced against them if they come to this country or indeed enforced against them when lawful Government is restored in Rhodesia. May I add that the mere effect of declaring certain activities to be criminal, as this Order does, has certain useful purposes as regards contractual rights and obligations. It has the effect of discouraging those who might be tempted to engage in illegality of the kind at which the Order aims.
I was asked a number of questions about other countries and what other Governments were doing about the Security Council resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest asked how many countries had ratified the resolution. A Security Council resolution does not need ratification by anyone; it is effective and valid without

further steps. But it is true that some countries may have to legislate or to take administrative action to give effect to the result.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: rose

The Attorney-General: I will not give way. Many African countries never had any trade with Southern Rhodesia or have cut it off already, so that in respect of them no further action after the resolution of 16th December, 1966 was necessary.
The procedure under the resolution is that all members of the United Nations are called upon to report to the Secretary-General, who must report to the United Nations not later than 1st March, 1967, about the implementation of the resolution. Until that is done, we cannot ascertain to what extent other countries have taken the necessary action. All I can say is that other countries might be laggard, but our plain duty is to comply with the terms of the resolution.

Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

The Attorney-General: I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and if he thinks that I will give way as a result of his shouting offensive observations across the Floor, he is underestimating my determination to try to be fair to the whole House. Until the returns are made by the Secretary-General, we cannot fully know the compliance of other countries with the Order.
It was said that West Germany had decided to exempt existing contracts. It is true that that appears to have been said in West German sources at some stage, but the latest public information is that they have taken no decision on this point and the indications are that they will faithfully comply with their obligations under the terms of the resolution. The President of the United States made an executive order on the 5th January this year to give full effect to the resolution, and the sanctions legislation therefore is already effective so far as the United States is concerned. There again, I should have thought that it ought to receive the enthusiastic approval of hon.


and right hon. Members opposite to realise that the American Government and people are supporting us in this stand. There were some questions asked—

Sir Douglas Glover: rose—

The Attorney-General: No. As I was saying, there were some questions asked about South Africa. We shall see what South Africa decides to do, in her own long-term interests. All I venture to say at this stage is that it would be quite wrong to assume that any member State will not abide by the U.N. resolution, which is binding on all member States. [Interruption.] Then I was asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a running commentary from hon. Members.

The Attorney-General: I was asked about Zambia and Malawi, and I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who suggested that Malawi and, I think, Zambia would not implement the U.N. sanctions resolution.

Mr. Sandys: I did not mention Malawi.

The Attorney-General: I beg the right hon. Member's pardon. So far as Malawi is concerned, the necessary legislation has been passed. So far as Zambia is concerned, President Kaunda has announced that his Government will implement the U.N. sanctions, and no further legislation is likely to be required in Zambia for that purpose.
Now perhaps I may turn to the matters which were raised in regard to the legality of the U.N. resolution. I hope that I shall not pontificate in seeking to answer this. Some lawyers think that when they express opinions they are expressing opinions, but when other lawyers give opinions that differ from those expressed, that is described as pontificating. While I will certainly not be over-awed by the opinion of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, I am certainly impressed by it, and I venture to think that any lawyer in this House who knows anything of his ability and standing must be impressed by it as well.
The first matter that was raised in regard to this part of the debate, and it is not a novel point but one that has been raised many times before, is that it is suggested that the resolution was not validly adopted in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of the Charter because two permanent members of the Security Council abstained.
I venture to submit that these doubts are unfounded. The consistent practice of the Council, which might almost be called U.N. case law since the very earliest days of the U.N., has been to interpret the phrase
concurring votes of the permanent members
in Article 27(3) to mean the votes of those members which actually cast a vote. Abstention in the Security Council practice is not regarded as casting a vote, and has not been regarded as amounting to a veto. All the permanent members of the Security Council have accepted the Council's practice in this regard and so also, for many years, have the nonpermanent members. No member of the Security Council which adopted the Resolution has queried the validity of its adoption.
It is argued that the Resolution is an infringement of Article 2(7) of the Charter, concerning, it is alleged, a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction. But, as I shall indicate, the action of the Security Council has been based on its conclusion and finding that, by reason of the continuance of the rebellion in Rhodesia we are in the presence of a threat to international peace and such a threat cannot reasonably be regarded as a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
I come now to the main argument.

Mr. Sandys: rose—

The Attorney-General: No. I am sorry.

Hon. Members: Give way.

The Attorney-General: I come now—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sandys: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The point I want elucidation on is one that the


right hon. and learned Gentleman has just touched upon—the question of a threat to international peace. Will he explain in what way this constitutes a threat? I thought that he was passing on to another subject.

The Attorney-General: I am always anxious to be courteous to the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and I rather anticipated the point he has raised, for I am now going to endeavour to deal with it. First, I remind the House of the actual terms of the Charter. Under Article 34, which forms part of Chapter VI,
The Security Council may investigate…any situation which might lead to international friction…in order to determine whether the continuance of the…situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
In the succeeding Article 35, any member of the United Nations may bring such a situation to the attention of the Security Council and then, under Article 36, the Security Council may at any stage of the situation recommend appropriate procedures. These Articles refer to disputes as well as situations and in some of the arguments we have heard tonight and which have been made in correspondence in The Times some hon. Members opposite appear to have taken the view that we were dealing with a dispute under these Articles and have, in my submission, confused themselves as to the procedures to be followed. But this is not the case. The Security Council was dealing with
…any situation which might lead to international friction.
Under Article 39, which forms part of Chapter VII,
The Security Council shall"—
note the imperative—
determine the existence of any threat to the peace…and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken…
under the succeeding Articles.
One of these measures is economic sanctions under Article 41. Some right hon. Members opposite, following their theory that the Security Council was dealing with a dispute under Chapter VI, have asserted that all the conciliation procedures indicated in Chapter VI must first be followed before proceeding to

Chapter VII. In my submission, there is no warranty for that view. First, the Security Council was applying itself to a situation and not a dispute. But even if this had been a dispute under Chapter VI, there is nothing in the Charter to indicate that these procedures must first be gone through before action under Chapter VII was taken.
Chapters VI and VII stand separately and use different language. Supposing that there was a breach of the peace committed, it could not be said that the Security Council had to go through all the conciliation procedure before taking action under Chapter VII to stop it. It would be an absurd conclusion. The resolution of the 20th November 1965, which amongst other things, called upon all States to refrain from recognising or assisting the régime, determined that
an extremely grave situation had arisen,
and that its continuance in time constituted a threat to international peace and security.
That was a resolution which the Government regarded as passed under Chapter VI of the Charter, dealing with a situation which might lead to international friction. At that stage there was no proceeding under Chapter VII. At the same time that very resolution pointed to the fact that the continuance of the situation constituted a threat to peace, a phrase which anticipated a Chapter VII situation.
Then came the resolution of 9th April, 1966, dealing only with oil. The situation in the meantime had become aggravated by the threat of substantial importations of oil through Beira. This resolution determined that the resulting situation constituted a threat to peace. Finally there was a resolution on 16th December last year, in which the Security Council expressly acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, determined that
the situation in Rhodesia constituted a threat to the peace.
It is for the Security Council to judge these matters in its own discretion. This was the intention of the framers of the Charter, as the records of the Preparatory Commission preceding the signing of the Charter show very clearly. There is no basis in these records, or elsewhere, for the contention that, for there to be a threat to the peace, there must be a threat


of aggression by one independent sovereign State against another. A threat can arise as much from a situation within a State as from a dispute between States. It was for the Security Council to decide that matter and it decided it. The situation in Rhodesia was that a small group of men, representing a small minority of the population, by an act of rebellion, seized power.
As time went on it became clear, in spite of sanctions imposed by ourselves and many other nations on a voluntary basis, and the many efforts that we have made, culminating in the meeting in H.M.S. "Tiger," to secure the end of the rebellion, that the regime is determined to retain, if it can, the power that it illegally seized, and it is determined to perpetuate its illegality. All of this in one of the most sensitive areas of the world for race relations. It is this continuing state of affairs which the Security Council has declared to threaten the peace.
It was in those circumstances that the Security Council passed the mandatory

sanctions resolutions, which Her Majesty's Government, taking all aspects of the problem into consideration, decided to sponsor. On this issue, we on this side have no doubt whatever that the Security Council, representing in this matter the conscience of mankind—[Interruption.]—indeed the fundamental basic humanity of mankind, and the common sense of mankind, was right and the Tory opposition is absolutely and totally wrong. I accordingly invite the House to approve these Orders.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 120.

Division No. 263.]
AYES
[12.40 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Donnelly, Desmond
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunn, James A.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kelley, Richard


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)
Ledger, Ron


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bence, Cyril
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Binns, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil


Blackburn, F.
Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacColl, James


Boardman, H.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdonald, A. H.


Booth, Albert
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Roy


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mellish, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J,


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, Neil
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Millan, Bruce


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dalyell, Tarn
Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hoy, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Hynd, John
Moyle, Roland


Dickens, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert


Doig, Peter
Janner, Sir Barnett
Newens, Stan




Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Robinson, W. O. J.(Walth'stow, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Oakes, Gordon
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ogden, Eric
Roebuck, Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wallace, George


Orbach, Maurice
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Orme, Stanley
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Oswald, Thomas
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitaker, Ben


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Redhead, Edward
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn
Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Reynolds, G. W.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woof, Robert


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swingler, Stephen



Richard, Ivor
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Alrey


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Powell, Rt- Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Prior, J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David


Burden, F. A.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crawley, Aidan
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Vickers, Dame Joan


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth), Sir Hugh
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 120.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[12.50 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert


Albu, Austen
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Alldritt, Walter
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Allen, Scholefield
Binns, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boardman, H.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Booth, Albert
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil




Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Péak)
Oswald, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Redhead, Edward


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Donnelly, Desmond
Ledger, Ron
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Lester, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson,W. O. j. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Snow, Julian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mapp, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Roy
Swingler, Stephen


Garrett, w. E.
Mellish, Robert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, lan
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Whitaker, Ben


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert
Wilkins, W. A.


Horner, John
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francs (Swindon)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Howie, W.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian



Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Digby, Simon Wingfeld
Holland, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hordern, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Birch, Rt. Hn, Nigel
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Glover, Sir Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Gtyn, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. A.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Clark, Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crawley, Aidan
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
More, Jasper


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Currie, G. B. H.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald




Neave, Airey
Renton, Rt. Hn. sir David
Wall, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Webster, David


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Royle, Anthony
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peel, John
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stodart, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wylie, N. R.


Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.
Younger, Hn. George


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1595), dated 21st December, 1966, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be approved.

Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 99), dated 30th January, 1967, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 [copy laid before the House, 30th January], approved.—[Mr. Bowden.]

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION

Order read for resuming deferred Proceeding on Question:
That leave be given to bring in a bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade.—[Mr. Milne.]

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Before we carry out this novel proceeding—it is the first time under our Special Orders that a Private Member's Bill has been voted on at this time of night, provided that the House disagrees about it—I submit that on a

Friday, under our previous procedure, when a Bill was debated, if, because it was talked out or for some other reason it was not drawn to a conclusion, that was the end of the Bill.
Here, under our new procedure, we had a Bill on Wednesday which was opposed by hon. Members, and it was therefore decided to bring it to a conclusion at a Division at the end of business. The business that the House was considering on that day was the Consolidated Fund Bill. At 3 o'clock in the morning my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with this point some time last week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat it.

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, we were all talking off the cuff last week. Here we are dealing with a new matter in our Sessional Orders procedure. We are reimposing on the Order Paper a Bill which, in my submission, died at 3.10 a.m. on Wednesday last, because it is clearly laid down in Sessional Orders that this sort of Bill will be decided, in future, at the end of the business for that day. This is no reflection on you, Mr Speaker; it is a reflection on the Leader of the House that our Sessional Orders make no provision for the fact that if, at the end of the business for that day, the House is counted out, it is impossible to take the Division on opposed business.
It is my humble submission that that means that the Private Member's Bill died—

Mr. Speaker: I have heard the hon. Member enough on that point of order. I ruled on this last week. Under the Sessional Order it is my duty to put the Question forthwith.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[1.10 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gregory, Arnold
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oakes, Cordon


Allen, Scholefield
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Haseldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bence, Cyril
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Binns, John
Horner, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bishop, E. S.
Howie, W.
Redhead, Edward


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James
Rees, Merlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Booth, Albert
Hynd, John
Richard, Ivor


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roebuck, Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Judd, Frank
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis Ron (Carilsle)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Dewar Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Swingler, Stephen


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, George


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
wellbeloved, James


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mapp, Charles
Whitaker, Ben


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Robert
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morris, Alfred (Wythenthawe)



Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Neil Carmichael and Mr. James Hamilton.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Murray, Albert



Garrett, W. E.
Newens, Stan





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R,
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Foster, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhart, Philip


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dance, James
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gurden, Harold


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Eden, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)







Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Monro, Hector
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, Anthony


Hirst, Geoffrey
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Webster, David


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, N. R.


Maude, Angus
Pounder, Rafton
Younger, Hn. George


Mawby, Ray
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Pym, Francis
Mr. John Wells and Mr. Kenneth Lewis.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. Edelman, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. Will Griffiths, Mr. Hale, Mr. Horner, Mr. Will Owen and Mr. David Watkins.

TRAVEL TRADE REGISTRATION

Bill to register certain sections of the travel trade and to introduce a code of conduct for the travel trade, presented accordingly and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

SCOTLAND (HOUSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

1.13 a.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister of State and I seem to be singularly unfortunate in the timing of Adjournment debates. We last took part in one at 5.30 a.m., and even with his new exalted position, on which I congratulate him, and the procedural reforms that are supposed to have occurred in the House, we still find ourselves here at one o'clock in the morning. But I had better not waste any more time on that.
I welcome the Report "Scotland's Older Houses". the Report of a Subcommittee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. It gives me the opportunity to use the Report for the subject of this debate. It has occasioned national interest. The Scottish Trade Union Conference has also taken the matter up. It has even brought forth a circular from the Scottish Office, which is no mean feat.
Some people say that there is nothing fresh in the Report. But I think that at least there have been some fresh minds looking at an old problem. For this reason, I certainly welcome it. I have one or two minor observations and criticisms; they are, indeed, minor. I do not like the reference in paragraphs 132 and 133 to cleansing and the lack of liaison between certain unspecified departments in unspecified local authorities. I always feel that that is a most unfair way of presenting something, even though they are trying to shelter a local authority from this public criticism. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to sort that one out and pass on the criticism to whichever local authority it refers to.
As to the photographs, I can never understand why, when in an official or semi-official document photographs of decaying property are used, the streets cannot be named, because I rather suspect that the property photographed has long since disappeared—at least, I hope so. It is not an uncommon fault, this. It is even found in Life and Work, the monthly magazine of the Church of Scotland; it uses a photograph of the Gorbals and it includes a Labour candidate who was a City Treasurer in the City of Glasgow, and I am quite sure he has been dead almost twenty years. This is the kind of thing which sometimes spoils what may be a worth-while report.
To come to the Report itself and paragraph 1 and the remit:
to examine the present statutory provisions relating to the determination of unfitness for human habitation and to make recommendations for amendments.
Paragraph 2 points out the difficulty of this when it says:
We have had to interpret our remit widely. … Furthermore we could not isolate


the issue of unfit housing from that of the improvement of old but ill-equipped houses and that of ensuring that good houses were adequately maintained. Finally we had to consider all these issues within the framework of the national housing programme, and the adequacy of the resources currently being devoted to housing.
In other words, it is almost quite impossible to deal with this subject in a narrow way, and one has to wander a wee bit, and perhaps I will be doing the same, too.
I want to deal with this in three parts: first, the role and responsibility of the central Government—and central Governments; second, the problem of Glasgow and its efforts to solve its problem; and third, slum clearance and the question of unfit houses and tolerable standards.
So far as the central Government are concerned, paragraph 73 of the Report really, as it says, constitutes "an indictment of Government policy", and it goes on:
We place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the central Government…The central Government have failed to provide the necessary leadership and the resources to encourage, assist and (in places) to compel local authorities to tackle the problem with the drive which it requires.
I know that the Report really refers to the previous central Government—

Mr. George Younger (Ayr): Why?

Mr. Brown: —because in this regard we hear a lot of talk about figures which can be obtained of completions in Scotland: 40,000 is accepted as a realistic figure, or a not unreasonable figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. Hon. Members opposite will have plenty of time to argue this one out, including the Pollok by-election. In the ten years when Members opposite were in power, I reckon they lost the people of Scotland on the average 10,000 new houses per year for 10 years.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn): Nonsense.

Mr. Brown: In only one year did they exceed 30,000 houses completed from all sources, at a time when labour and materials were plentiful; in other words, when the pressure was not on labour and materials, as it is today. The Advisory Committee's Report itself is a result of this Government's action in reconstitut-

ing the Advisory Committee which had been allowed to go into disuse.
May I refer to the Scottish Development Department's Report for last year and quote some of the wonderful overspill successes which were expected under the previous Government's legislation. In Alyth an agreement was concluded with Glasgow in 1959 for 250 houses. The total completed up to September last year was nil. In Forfar the figure was 150 houses, and the total number of houses completed was nil. In Perth the figure was 200,000 houses and the number completed was nil. In Stranraer the figure was 600 houses and the number completed was nil.
These were all good, solidly Conservative-held towns which were supposed to be going to co-operate in making the overspill effort a success. If, when they were in Government, hon. Members opposite had applied half the energy and drive to solving the housing problem which they applied to pursuing rent increases and the policies which followed the Rent Act, we might have had more houses now. The crocodile tears of some Conservative Members when writing articles about this report for the Press are fantastic.

Mr. G. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will not give way during an Adjournment debate.
May I refer to paragraph 64 of the Report. The efforts which Glasgow has made come out well. But the Report says:
Glasgow has a reputation for bad housing conditions, and despite great efforts by the corporation we have found that this reputation is unfortunately justified. We have seen conditions in Glasgow that can be described only as appalling. Families are condemned to live in atrocious conditions which should shock the national conscience, and we believe would do so if they were better known.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the problem is that even in Glasgow many people do not know about the bad housing conditions.
Not enough credit is given to the positive achievements of Glasgow and the number of houses which they have completed. I pay tribute to past and present conveners of Glasgow Corporation. Glasgow is often maligned. The Corporation's solid achievements are overlooked


in focussing attention on the foul conditions that cause mental and physical deterioration to the minds and the health of people, with all the results of escapism that one associates with slum conditions.
In Glasgow there were 5,000 completions last year, and they have an estimated programme of 6,000 completions a year from 1967 to 1970. That is not just outstanding, it is magnificent considering all the difficulties that Glasgow has to overcome and the lack of sites. Glasgow has to deal with roughly 1,700 unfit houses per year, and in a voluntary way it has had to accept over 3,000 houses as gifts from owners who wanted to get rid of them; they had no great expectation of life, but the Corporation has had to spend over £100,000 in keeping them in a habitable state, to keep them going for a few years. The Corporation has experimented with the Kent Road and Tollcross Road schemes, which, I must confess, for a variety of reasons have not been very successful.
There are serious implications in this housing shortage. Overspill takes some of the best citizens of Glasgow away. We cannot indulge in housing co-operative schemes and we cannot have any owner-occupation in the City. In 1965 the proportion of houses built for owner-occupation in Glasgow was 3.5 per cent.; in Scotland 27 per cent.; and the average in England, 50 per cent. If owner-occupation is desirable—and I think it is—why should not Glasgow have its share? The housing shortage is responsible for teachers and policemen leaving the City. They cannot get decent houses or houses of their own choice within the City. We can hardly even afford to contemplate taking advantage of a local broadcasting station because of the burden that we face with redevelopment and other efforts which add charges to the rates. I think Glasgow has done a magnificent job in extremely difficult circumstances.
What about slum clearance? Paragraph 74 of the Report makes reference to this problem and it suggests that some of the figures given by Glasgow in response to a circular from the Government in 1964 are meaningless because they under-played or under-estimated the houses that were unfit. I think 11,000

unfit houses was all that Glasgow said they had in 1964, but of course this was nothing like the number of unfit houses. This was what Glasgow reasonably expected to be able to do in the period covered, and this is a serious matter which is covered quite fully in the Report. It is one of the suggestions, or recommendations, of the Report that those trying to decide what an unfit house is should look at the matter with greater definition.
I cannot possibly hope to cover all the points in the Report, nor all the suggestions, comments or recommendations made in it. But to summarise what I think should be done, I am suggesting that the Government should accept an eight-point programme.
First, there should be a full inquiry into the overspill arrangements, a look at the agreements that have not worked and the payments that have to be made by Glasgow, which I think are completely out of order. Last year only 1,400 families were rehoused through overspill outside the City, when the target was 3,000 families. The programme should by now have been up to about 24,000 families rehoused, but it has only rehoused about 13,000 families.
Second, I should like another look at the land use inside and outside the City, for example Cowlairs being accepted as an industrial estate and Queenslie, where almost 90 acres is going begging, might be sufficient justification for the Department to have another look at land use.
Third, there should be an examination of out-county estate arrangements. I am not happy about this if it increases the problems in Glasgow. Fourth, what about another new town? Fifth, what about a Committee to examine the social and economic effects of overspill, redevelopment and bad housing, and the effect that they are having on the financial structure in Glasgow?
Sixth, what about a pilot scheme for declining areas such as Dennistoun or Queens Cross? If we need to grasp the thorny nettle of rents, let us do so. Let us not hand out any more public money to private landlords.
Seven, if present legislation is not flexible enough, let us have new legislation that will give effect to the promises that were made to give special assistance to


the areas with the greatest need. And eight, why not have some kind of public discussion with the Scottish Office, the Corporation, Members of Parliament, and the S.C.T.U., to air the problems of Glasgow, which can only be solved if a Scottish effort is made to solve these problems?
I do not want to be cynical, but if Glasgow were 350 miles nearer London, I would hazard a guess that we might have made more progress. And if it were 30 miles nearer Greenock or Kilmarnock we might get more attention to it.
When one looks at this Report and looks at what has been done in a short time, and pinpointing the weaknesses of the present legislation and pinpointing the social conditions that should be of concern to us all, I am confident that we shall get some action from this Government because we certainly did not get it from the last one.

1.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am obliged to my hart Friend for initiating this short debate on this very important Report. Due to the Secretary of State's decision, I have had the privilege of being Chairman of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee since we reconstituted it in 1965. I have never understood why all these Committees were abandoned in 1951 and 1952. They were casualities of the change of Government in 1951. All the Committees and the previous ones did excellent work, including "Choosing Council Tenants", which is still the standard text-book on housing allocation. This subject will be dealt with in the next report of the Advisory Committee.
The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were agreed upon by its members, most of whom are also members of the main Committee. We took no exception to the way in which they interpreted them so widely—quite rightly. We agreed that the Sub-committee should write its own report based on its work and present it to the mother Committee, which would advise my right hon. Friend as to whether it should be published in the public interest by the Advisory Committee. That is what the prefatory note means at the commencement of the Report.
We have sent a copy to each local authority and to many other bodies which gave advice. They will make their comments, particularly on those provisions which would have to be translated into statute if my right hon. Friend were to accept the burden of the Report. There are some very good recommendations in it. The Committee put much hard work in to and I pay tribute to Mr. Cullingworth and his colleagues, who worked like beavers for nearly a year to get the Report out to the rest of the Committee in time.
I shall not comment now on the major recommendations which would entail reform of the public health laws and many housing Statutes. Nor shall I comment on the need for definition of "unsatisfactory environment" or "minimum desirable standards" or "satisfactory standards" in present Statutes. All this will involve legislation.
But there is this to be said at once, particularly about the crocodile tears in some newspapers.
The problem of housing in Scotland has existed for decades. Anyone would think from these comments that slums had existed only under this Government. Some of the newspapers appear to have discovered them only since the Report. One commentator, not renowned for his lack of partisanship, has written:
Action is needed now on a scale never before envisaged by the Scottish Office.
That is patent nonsense. These slums have been there for very many years. In our 1965 White Paper, we said that up to 500,000 houses were needed to renew sub-standard housing. But we confessed that this figure was a guess. One of the extraordinary things I discovered when appointed a junior Minister at the Scottish Office was that we had no measurement of the problem. Lord Kelvin said that if one wants to study a problem one must first measure it. Mr. Cullingworth is one of our principal lieutenants in this matter and we commissioned the Scottish Housing survey. I hope that the results will be available to the House by the mid-summer or autumn, giving the first comprehensive assessment of what is the position not only as regards the slums but also of all standards of housing.
We can therefore look forward to a few more "bombs"—if this is a "bomb"—bursting on the political scene when we tell the people the cruel facts about Scottish housing. I do not want to follow too much the points raised by my hon. Friend at this stage but to put on record one or two facts about slum clearance in Glasgow. The Corporation has always fulfilled its obligations to the Government. When it has said that it would clear slum houses it has done so, and I cannot say that of everyone. And it has done so on time. In the years 1955–67, to the end of this year, it promised to clear 23,000 slums.
Up to September 1966, in other words with 15 months still to go, the Corporation has cleared 34,784 slums. We are not satisfied, and neither is the Corporation, with this rate of demolition. We have seen a very significant increase in the clearance of slums in Glasgow and in Scotland generally. If one takes the available figures—we do not have the figures until the end of last year—for slum clearance for Scotland as a whole, one sees that the average in the last five years of the previous Government was of the order of 12,000 a year. In 1965 we cleared 15,534, and up to the end of September last we cleared 12,428. This year we hope for the highest figure of clearance since the end of the war.
We are in the fortunate position in Glasgow of seeing the Corporation embark on its C.D.A. programme, involving for example the clearance of Anderston and Cowcaddens and some of the worse parts of the old city. The clearance is bound to get rid of a great number of slums. A lot of sub-standard housing will be swept away in addition.
In our two Measures so far in dealing with the financial aspect of the programme we have faced up to the introduction of a new comprehensive development grant contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. This gives local planning authorities help towards the cost of acquiring and clearing slum areas suitable for redevelopment.
The Housing (Financial Provisions Etc.) (Scotland) Bill which we will discuss again very shortly, I hope, will provide local authorities with a much greater housing subsidy on all houses approved

since November, 1965, and a large number of others approved since 1st January, 1965. In effect the new subsidy will double the present amount of grants and just as significant, it will peg the rate of interest.
The Report suggests three things where action should be taken. The first calls for quicker demolition of the worst houses. The expanded building programme and the financial measures to which I have referred are the prerequisites to this. It also demands the streamlining of the procedures to get on clearing these slum houses and the clarification of the law. This requires a lot of discussion with local authorities and we have given them until October to give their advice.
The second proposal was for a programme of the essential repair and immediate improvement—that is, a programme of "patching". This is very difficult in Glasgow. The commentators in the Report talk about Birmingham, saying that it had done better than Glasgow. One has to be fair in this and look at the standard of housing being improved in Birmingham, compared with that in Glasgow, where we are cursed with the old-style Victorian tenements of the 1880s which are very difficult to modernise. In Birmingham, even though the houses are bad, the structure of them was not of the kind which did not allow reasonable patching.
In Scotland we have something like a limit of expenditure of £1,400 to modernise a house and that is in excess of the figure in England, but even with that sum it is difficult to bring tenement houses up to modern standards. Many people do not want to return to houses which have been patched up, and have to live in a slum for 15 to 20 years. Many would prefer to wait for a council house. This is a proposition we want to discuss with the authorities outside Glasgow. We are in a good position because we will also discuss it with Glasgow.
I have not time to deal in detail with all the points raised by my hon. Friend, but my noble friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will meet housing convenors in a few days' time to discuss how we can implement the Cullingworth Report in Scotland. In conjunction with that, he will be having discussions with the Convenor of Housing in Glasgow.


I have been in the fortunate position of discussing with Glasgow for nearly two and a quarter years the problems arising out of housing and planning. We have managed to extend our idea of the five-year programme to what happens beyond 1970, after the five-year programme has elapsed.
I take the second point made by my hon. Friend concerning land use inside and outside Glasgow. We have examined that. I shall examine the two points specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend, certainly about examining land use outside Glasgow. We hope to have a meeting with Renfrewshire County Council and all other authorities in Renfrew-shire on 3rd April to discuss land use in the county. We discussed this matter with Lanarkshire on 13th January. I hope that we will be discussing it with Stirlingshire on 3rd March, which will settle, I hope, the position in Stirling-shire for at least the time being. We have had discussions with Dunbartonshire and I shall be continuing them on Friday. In other words, I have for some time been active on this second point.
There is, however, the question of overspill. My hon. Friend is quite right. There is great concern about this. The previous Government, for all kinds of reasons—some good, some not so good—did not manage to get up to the figure of 3,000 families a year which was intended to be a running average over ten years. It took them almost 10 years to get up to a figure of 3,000. Last year—we all regret it—the overspill was less than 2,000 within the conventional agreements. We are, therefore, substantially in deficit. Hence the reason why we have gone into the question of out-county additions—they can only be additions—to the conventional overspill agreement.
I admit that there are financial implications, which, perhaps, are unfair to Glasgow, but I promised Glasgow Cor-

poration that we will do a proper financial analysis with them in time for a meeting with the Corporation on 9th June. I have told the local authorities in Scotland that we will report back to them as well as to Glasgow our findings concerning the financial implications for the city. which may mean some readjustment of financial grants in Scotland, with particular reference to the new burden on Glasgow.
We can go no further than that at present because, as the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) would be the first to acknowledge, there is a lot more to this than simply consulting local authorities. There are the Treasury and other agencies of government which have to be consulted if one is to proceed a step further.
We have inaugurated a fifth new town. It is salutary to realise how long the process takes from the pronouncement about Irvine, getting the area designated, the procedure of public inquiry and the rest. I think that it was started when the party opposite were in office. I do not complain of that. It was announced just before the election—[Interruption.]—in August, 1964. But it has taken a considerable time to go through all the statutory procedures.
It is certainly fair to say that we may need a sixth new town in Scotland, and perhaps sooner than we think. We have, however, to get on with the fifth new town, to get building started there, get on with the out-county estates and then give thought as to whether—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Two o'clock.